Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further Proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented to this House in the present Session.

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid up on the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill, as amended, to he House, forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Animals (Export)

Mr. Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce a ban on the export of live food animals for slaughter following publication of the departmental review of this trade on 23rd March.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I am considering representations on the report by officials of the Agriculture Departments and, pending a decision, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told the Council of EEC Ministers of our concern and asked if it proposes to take any action. The Commission confirmed that new proposals concerning intra-Community trade in live food animals will be put forward shortly.

Mr. Corbett: I acknowledge the Minister's personal concern in this matter, as reflected in his vote against the resumption of this trade in January 1975, but does he understand that a majority of Members of this House and of the public outside these walls can have no confidence at all in either the willingness or the ability of those responsible in the countries where these animals are sent to enforce even existing regulations? If the Minister cannot announce a total ban on this vile trade, may I invite him at least to suspend the issue of further licences until the Government have made up their minds what to do on the basis of the biased departmental report published in March?

Mr. Silkin: I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern about this matter and I take the opportunity to acknowledge his devotion and his ability in this cause. I think that the truth of the matter is that when, as in my case, one's emotions and instincts lead one to a certain conclusion, it demands a greater objectivity when one becomes the Minister. For that reason, when I come to make my decision it will, I hope, be the right decision and it will be made without fear and without favour.
One conclusion that I have come to in the meantime is that the committee of experts of the Council of Europe, which recommended the abolition of the live trade and the substitution for it of a carcase trade throughout Europe—not only in the Community—probably had the right answer. I was therefore rather encouraged by the report from the Commissioner who said that the live trade is declining throughout Europe and the carcase trade is expanding.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Has the Minister any proof or evidence that any British livestock exporters have broken the welfare code during the past five years?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I have any evidence. That is not the problem with which we are dealing. The problem is not in these islands. Our regulations are extremely good and we have tightened them up very well indeed. The problem arises in areas over which we have no control, and there are those who say that, because we have no control, the whole trade should be banned. There are others who say that perhaps we can try to get some control.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side on this Question. We shall move faster afterwards.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that some of us are very troubled, because we listened to the comments of his colleagues on the Front Bench—although my right hon. Friend was not there at the time—on the reassurances that we had been given about the EEC and the existing legislation, and we have come to the conclusion that we were conned in the sense that those regulations could not be enforced? We are very troubled when the Minister talks about hearing more proposals from the Common Market. Those that we have now do not stick. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have made up our minds that we must ban this offensive trade forthwith?

Mr. Silkin: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. In my turn, I need to see what the Commission is proposing. I do not know what that is at the moment.

It matters a great deal, because the proposals might, for example, lead us along a line which gets to the carcase trade. I believe that to be the right approach. The question is whether it is moving fast enough. If it does not move fast enough for our purposes, it will be my duty to try to alter those proposals so that it does.
I wish to add that I sense that this is becoming an issue in which the public are becoming more and more interested. That will have its effect not only here but throughout Europe.

Mr. Peter Mills: May I ask the Minister not to dismiss the economic arguments while temporary employment subsidies are being paid to many slaughterhouses throughout this country? Will he, therefore, seek to phase out the export of old ewes and old cows while still allowing the export of calves of rearing stock? Surely this is the way forward.

Mr. Silkin: This is very much one of the aspects that need to be looked at. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we need to achieve something on an interim basis until an eventual solution is arrived at.
I was interested, when I was at the Great Yorkshire Show last week, to find that it was not just a case of the slaughterhouses working under capacity. There were farmers who were themselves opposed to the trade for other than economic reasons.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government supporters certainly look at this matter objectively, unlike the National Farmers' Union, which simply adopts the balance sheet approach and considers the economics of it? May I remind my right hon. Friend that 162 Government supporters have signed a motion demanding that this trade should cease and that a further 245 Members of the House have asked for a debate on the subject? Can we not have a debate so that we can express in the Division Lobbies our opposition to this indefensible trade?

Mr. Silkin: The question of a debate is not one for me. I suggest that the objectivity or lack of objectivity of the NFU is perhaps a greater reason why I should be objective.

Sir Bernard Braine: Why wait for the Commission? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the distaste in this country springs from the knowledge that it is impossible to ensure that animals will be slaughtered humanely at the final point of destination. If that is so, why does he not take unilateral action by carrying out the pledge of his predecessor, which was to lay an order making it mandatory for the final point of destination to be stated by exporters? The action is in his own hands.

Mr. Silkin: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the trade is bad in the sense that it is not being carried out humanely in other parts of Europe—I think we all agree that it is well carried out in our own country—does it really matter whether the cruelty, if cruelty there is, is inflicted on a British calf, a French calf or an Italian calf? Is not our job to see that the whole trade changes?

Sugar

Mr. Loyden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he remains satisfied about the future availability and price of refined sugar in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the forecasts made by the press about the increase in price and the shortage of refined sugar? Is he aware, further, that the problems in the refining industry stem from the insane practices attributed to the common agricultural policy of the EEC? Is he aware also that jobs in the north-west are threatened by the dumping of refined white sugar in that area in particular? Will he ensure that the capacity of the British industry is used in order to ensure that sugar supplies and prices remain stable to the British housewife?

Mr. Bishop: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his activities and the interest and concern he has shown in defence of the area that he represents. As he has quite rightly said, we are facing the need to keep supply and demand in balance, and, of course, the price is a very impor-

tant factor in this. One of the problems is the sugar supply situation.
In regard to the import of EEC white sugar, we shall be importing about 210,000 tons of white sugar this year, so obviously there is some demand for it. However, I believe that we should all be thinking of the situation and buying British as far as we possibly can. We should seek to supply as much as possible from our own market, whether from the beet sector or from the refined sector to which my hon. Friend has referred. Of course, my hon. Friend is aware of the discussions which have been taking place for some time and particularly in the past few days. I understand that there is great measure of agreement between the unions and Tate and Lyle on the current situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for shorter questions and answers? Hon. Members should realise that we are usually on Question no. 5 by this time.

Mr. Farr: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, while sugar prices charged to the consumer at home are very high, overseas world sugar prices are at a record low level? What can he do to obtain some of these cheap supplies of overseas sugar and make them available for consumers in Britain?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend and our colleagues have campaigned vigorously within the Community to keep surpluses down and also, of course, that the award this year of the 2 per cent. increase for sugar was below the average. These are factors in the situation.

Milk (Distribution)

Mr. Madden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will abandon proposals to prohibit the distribution of farm-bottled milk.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 12th June. A statement will be made in due course in the light of the consultations which my Department is currently undertaking.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister understand that his willingness and that of his


right hon. Friend to meet a number of us this week on this issue is much appreciated? Will he confirm that he is considering the representations on this matter with a completely open mind and that there is no question of an automatic ban being introduced in 1980?

Mr. Strang: Yes, I can confirm that. The Government are considering the whole question of the ban afresh and my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he has an open mind.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the Minister aware that the ban on this trade will deprive many individuals, particularly those in rural areas, of really good fresh milk?

Mr. Strang: I should point out that no such policy is envisaged. Where there was no alternative source of supply, the ban would not be effective. We recognise, however, that the issue goes much wider than this and we are giving careful consideration to all the representations that are being made.

Land Purchase

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take to prevent the further purchase of land for farming by financial institutions and foreign nationals.

Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend the Minister has already asked Lord Northfield and his committee to examine recent trends in agricultural land acquisition and occupancy, which includes the purchase of land by financial institutions and foreign nationals.

Mr. Lewis: I wonder whether we can wait much longer. Is there not an invasion of England's green and pleasant land by the Germans and the Dutch who are buying up land? Is it not just as important to prevent the export of land—the takeover of land—as it is to prevent the takeover and export of objects of art and pictures?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a point that undoubtedly is causing great concern in the countryside—namely, not only the acquisition of land by overseas nationals but the increasing acquisition of land by large financial institutions.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of land before we went into the Common Market was £500 a hectare and that it is now £2,000 a hectare? Is it not true that the question from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) shows that the idea that a free market in land, goods or capital will give greater prosperity or security to communities is a facile one which does not hold water?

Mr. Strang: It is certainly true that there has been a sharp increase in land prices. It is also true—I speak here particularly as a Scot—that acquisitions have been made not only by nationals from within the Community but by Arabs and others.

Mr. Welsh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great concern in Scotland's green and pleasant land about the present massive purchases of our land by foreign nationals and by large companies? Does he agree that provision of a public national land register showing clearly who owns the land, how much and for what purposes would help to clarify the debate, and will he encourage his colleagues to institute such a register as a matter of priority?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of my long-standing concern about the land issue in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands. However, I must point out that my responsibilities in this matter extend only to England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in February last year I announced a pilot study to examine the feasibility of a full survey of the ownership of agricultural land in England and Wales.

European Unit of Account

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of negotiations in the EEC towards the adoption of the European unit of account for agricultural purposes.

Mr. John Silkin: I have pressed the Council to discuss the Commission report which in principle favoured the introduction of the European unit of account into the common agricultural policy, and I have insisted that no decisions can he taken on the proposal to phase out MCAs until this issue has been resolved.

Mr. Wiggin: Does not the Minister agree that the staggering increase in food prices has been due very largely to the Government's mismanagement of our currency? Is he not aware that, unless stern action is taken by the Government to introduce a new unit of account for trading and food across Community borders, this trouble will prolong itself?

Mr. Flannery: Which way did the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Silkin: With regard to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, I invite him, in return for my buying him a pound of butter and a pound of steak in the United Kingdom, to buy me a pound of butter and a pound of steak in Germany, because the difference is 44p per pound for butter and £1 for steak. We are dealing with a basket of currencies based upon the "snake", which, effectively, is the German mark. If we were to have a European basket of all the currencies—in other words, bringing the other two-thirds of the production and two-thirds of the population into the calculation—and if the common prices were lowered to those of the three countries with the weakest currencies—the United Kingdom, France and Italy—the difference would be enormous and the prices would go down to a level that would enable the hon. Gentleman to enjoy his butter and his steak in Bonn.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one who pretends to wish to see the common agricultural policy reformed will have anything to do with the alignment of currencies proposed at Bremen?

Mr. Silkin: I think that that question goes rather beyond the agricultural remit. But I agree with the right hon. Member that not only does the common agricultural policy need to be reformed but it needs to be fundamentally reformed.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he were to follow the advice frequently given from the Benches opposite of realigning the green pound forthwith, or very quickly, this would induce far too unacceptable a level of inflation in prices to the consumer in this country? Does he also agree that the evidence from Ireland and Italy is that by continual revaluation of their pound and green lira they have over-

compensated their farmers for what they really require?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is right. Entry into the EEC has resulted in an increase of about 10 per cent. in the price of foods in this country.

Mr. Wiggin: What about the other 95 per cent.?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was suggesting—and, I believe, is still suggesting, unless he cares to reject it now—that parity between the green currencies should be established over a two to three-year period. That would add another 10 per cent. to the prices.

Mr. Wiggin: What about the other 95 per cent?

Mr. Silkin: While we are about it, if the Opposition are really so concerned about the level of food prices and so on, I must point out that there are a large number of counties represented by hon. Members opposite which do not propose to operate the free milk scheme.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to take the opportunity of explaining how he accounts for the rest of the increases in food prices which have taken place since his Government have been in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Common Market."] As he has taken the opportunity to dwell upon Conservative policy, may I ask whether he is aware that such modification as I have made from my original statement in the House has been due very largely to the mess and muddle caused by his own economic policy?

Mr. Silkin: I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is considering modifying his policy, because at the time when he was not modifying his policy the same statistics applied—that is, a 10 per cent. increase in food prices, which at that time, he told us, was necessary in the national interest. With regard to the rest of the price increases, the right hon. Gentleman is missing a very important point—namely, the increase in oil prices, the effect on fertilisers and the effect on prices all over the Community. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at prices there, he will see that they, too, have risen.

Mr. Peyton: I know of no greater expert than the right hon. Gentleman at missing points that are inconvenient to him. Does he acknowledge that while he and his friends have been in office, food prices have more than doubled and he has not bothered to explain why?

Mr. Silkin: I thought that I had bothered to explain. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps takes a little longer to understand these points than most other people. The first and most important issue is what could have been foreseen, and was in fact foreseen, by his Government when they took us into the EEC in the first place—namely, a 10 per cent. increase in food prices. What they could not have foreseen, I agree, was the increase in oil prices, which had its effect upon the food prices of all the temperate zones throughout the world.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further reforms he has in mind for the common agricultural policy.

Mr. John Silkin: I set out the Government's position on the reform of the CAP in my speech to the House on 21st March.

Mr. Marten: On a more peaceful, all-party basis, does the Minister recall the resolution of this House, passed with the full-hearted consent of the Opposition in July last year, calling for easier access into the United Kingdom of efficiently produced foodstuffs from outside the EEC, which, I am sure, would reduce the cost of food? What have the Government done about that and what success has been achieved? If little progress has been made, can the Minister explain why?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very important point. It remains very much part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there shall be a freer importation of foodstuffs into the Community. I sometimes get the impression that as regards EEC Minissters of Agriculture we, like the Red Queen, have to run merely in order to stand still. We have managed to preserve some importation of beef, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to preserve the importation of butter from New Zealand and, I think, to preserve the importation of lamb from New Zealand. I do not regard

that as anywhere near sufficient and I doubt very much whether he does.

Mr. Watkinson: Now that the CAP is under review at the highest level in the Council of Ministers, will the Minister ensure that a paper is put in from the British Government extolling the merits of a deficiency payments system to support farm income rather than the end price system at present being adopted in the Common Market?

Mr. Silkin: I accept very fully that the real problem of the common agricultural policy is exactly that question of the creation of surpluses of food in order to put them into store rather than into the mouths of human beings. To the extent that the intervention system as we know it contributes towards that situation, Her Majesty's Government will be stating and have frequently stated exactly where we stand on this matter. We are totally against a system which encourages storage and does not encourage the consumption of food.

Mr. Watt: Is not the Minister aware that British farmers cannot wait indefinitely for a reform of the CAP? As the benefit of the devaluation of 7½ per cent. has been totally swallowed up, will he, even now, pay some attention to the SNP's proposal that he should move forward to a system whereby there is a devaluation of 1 per cent. per month until we come much nearer parity on food prices with our EEC partners?

Mr. Silkin: I rather thought that that proposal had died of old age, but if it is still on the table is answer is "No, Sir". We have the interests of our own people to follow. We have to deal with them. Even the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is modifying his position. Surely it is time the SNP began to think about it, too.

Mr. Torney: In view of the utter futility of the common agricultural policy and its effect on the British food economy, would my right hon. Friend consider for a start the reform of the CAP so that we have the right to buy our food from the best markets in the world and, conversely, so that individual nations within the EEC have the right to subsidise industries of their own that need subsidising out of their own exchequers?

Mr. Silkin: For many reasons, a freer trade into the Community is right. It does no harm, for example, that a butter—

Mr. Torney: Bacon.

Mr. Silkin: —or bacon—producing nation also imports it. So I agree totally with my hon. Friend. We must get the position more liberalised. I also agree that there needs to be a greater national say than is at present apparent in the common agricultural policy.
The fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy will not be achieved overnight. It will meet a great deal of opposition. It is none the less necessary.

Potato Prices

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what he attributes the rise in the price of potatoes in spite of the fact that the amount of tons of potatoes produced in the United Kingdom during this past 12 months is the highest for three years.

Mr. Bishop: In each of the first 10 months of the present marketing year, the average retail price of potatoes has been lower than in the equivalent period of both the previous two years. Although new potatoes were, as usual, high-priced when they first became available, the market is now very well supplied.

Mr. Wainwright: In spite of what my right hon. Friend said, is he not aware that in February of this year the Potato Marketing Board purchased 546,000 tons of potatoes and is now offering them at £70 a ton retail, having purchased them for £35 a ton from the farms? When will the Minister have some control over the Potato Marketing Board?
Moreover, is it not true that we are importing frozen chips and that it is, therefore, disgraceful if potatoes are being held back and allowed to deteriorate in the ground and the Minister does nothing?

Mr. Bishop: If my hon. Friend looks at the figures, he will see that, despite his claims, from August last until March of this year the average retail price of potatoes was less than half that of 1977. Since then the price has remained con-

siderably lower. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the need to give producers the confidence to grow potatoes is very important, and the buying-in programme and the guarantee are factors in that situation.

Mr. Welsh: How much of the increase in potato production was in seed potatoes as opposed to ware potatoes? Is the Minister aware of the importance of the seed potato industry and its potential as a valuable export winner? What steps is he taking to increase markets worldwide for our seed potato industry?

Mr. Bishop: As the hon. Member says, the superiority of our seed potato industry is well known, especially the Scottish varieties. These are factors which are borne in mind.

Mr. Jopling: Does not the Minister of State agree that, in spite of the efforts of the Potato Marketing Board, this year has been a disastrous season for growers, who have received a return of about £2 per ton below the guaranteed price? Does that not show that, even with the efforts of the board, it has been a simply hopeless year and that without the board's efforts farmers would have lost a great deal more money?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should be fair and take into account the situation in which potatoes are being produced this year and were produced last year in the absence of a potato regime. We have been pressing the Community for at least a couple of years to try to get the matter settled. I think it is commendable that, when a ban on imports has been questioned by the European Court, we gave a guarantee to the producers last year and this year which has been important for their prospects.

European Community Ministers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. John Silkin: When I next attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers on 24th and 25th July.

Mr. Canavan: When my right hon. Friend meets his Common Market counterparts, will he reject utterly any


proposals, such as the insane policy just mentioned by the SNP spokesman, for a further massive devaluation of the green pound, which might put more money into the pockets of rich farmers such as the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) but would have a disastrous effect on family budgets by pushing up the price of food to ordinary housewives?

Mr. Silkin: I do not expect to quote the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) when I meet my fellow Ministers in the Agriculture Council on 24th and 25th July, although if it is necessary I shall put my hon. Friend's point to them. It is a point that needs to be made over and over again—perhaps very slowly—to the Opposition, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Parity in green currencies would mean a 10 per cent. increase in the cost of shopping for every family in this country. That is the Opposition's policy and I hope that every Labour Member will make that clear.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in the delicate art of misrepresentation, at which he is such an expert. May I ask him, since there is no immediate prospect of his meeting his partners in Brussels, whether he will give the fishing industry some indication of when the damaging stalemate will be finished? May I also ask him for an assurance that there is not, under wraps in Brussels at this moment, an agreement that is just awaiting its finishing touches and of which we know nothing?

Mr. Silkin: With regard to the first point, it is not for me to say whether Hansard has been misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if he reads his words and those of his hon. Friend he will find all that he needs. [An HON. MEMBER: "As modified."] As modified.
With regard to fisheries, I do not know of any agreement that is under wraps. I hope that a sensible solution can be arrived at by the simple expedient of the Commission issuing proposals which exactly meet the terms that we have always put on the table and which remain there. That is what I shall tell the fishing industry tomorrow, and it will remain my policy as long as I hold this position.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend put it to the gentlemen in Brussels that the EEC is trying to interfere in Britain in an utterly ridiculous and humiliating way—by requiring, for example, that certain meat inspections should be carried out not as they have been satisfactorily done in Britain by environmental health inspectors but by vets?

Mr. Silkin: That is an old point which has arisen again. We are taking up the point in Brussels in so far as it concerns our domestic production—that which is destined for the United Kingdom market. It is a bit different when one comes to meat for export, because not only is the EEC concerned but there are a number of separate countries which insist on veterinary inspection before accepting meat.

Mr. Michael Latham: Regarding the common agricultural policy, does my memory fail me or was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Cabinet of the Government now headed by the Prime Minister—who has just come into the Chamber—who were supposed to have carried out a renegotiation in 1975, which that Government recommended to the country?

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the statement issued at the time, he will find that reference was made to a stocktaking of the common agricultural policy, which, I believe, the German Government had promised to initiate. It was in the light of that that the renegotiation took place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman might care to refresh his memory, as I did only yesterday. He will find in the statement a very clear reference to the fact that we did not find the common agricultural policy quite as good or effective as he and his hon. Friends found it at the time.

Mr. Peyton: Would not "Yes" have been a simple, honest and straightforward answer to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Silkin: No, it would not. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be busy reading up his own speeches in Hansard and showing where they differ from his present position as modified, but he might find a little time to read also the statement in question.

Potatoes

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Potato Marketing Board took up 500,000 tons of potatoes in February; and what is the estimated tonnage of these potatoes which will have to be ploughed into the ground.

Mr. Bishop: Because of depressed returns to producers in the first part of the current season, the Potato Marketing Board, with the approval of my right hon. Friend, put a support buying programme into operation. Prices were slow to respond until late in the season, when free stocks were reducing rapidly.
Of all the potatoes contracted under the buying programme, the volume left unused at the end of the season represents only about 3 per cent. of the 1977 British crop, which at 6·2 million tonnes was the biggest for three years.

Mr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend give the real facts? Does he not agree, first, that the Potato Marketing Board purchased 542,000 tonnes of potatoes in February—of which 240,000 tonnes have rotted—at a cost to the taxpayer of £10 million as a subsidy to the farmer, and secondly, that this forced up the price of potatoes from 3p a pound to 5p a pound? Is it not time that the Potato Marketing Board was wound up as it is merely an adjunct to the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Bishop: In reply to an earlier Question. I stated that the average retail price of potatoes this year is less than half what it was a year ago. We should keep this matter in perspective. There is a net surplus, as I said, of only 3 per cent. in a crop totalling 6·2 million tonnes. That is a small surplus when we consider all the problems facing the industry—the change in eating patterns since 1976, when there was a very severe drought and potato prices went very high, changes in yield, changes in consumer demand and so on. I think that I and the House would be much more worried if there were a shortage of 3 per cent. instead of a surplus. In all the circumstances, I think that the outcome is very commendable. At the same time, the PMB and the guarantee have an important role to play.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of plantings for the year 1978–79?

Mr. Bishop: I cannot give the figures to the hon. Member at present, but I hope that the plantings will be adequate to ensure that supply and demand are in balance when the time comes.

Milk and Milk Products

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the steps taken by the Council of Ministers to increase consumption of milk and milk products throughout the EEC.

Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I ask the Minister about the EEC school milk scheme and why he has not made it mandatory? Is he aware that many county councils are refusing to join the scheme, apparently because they see it as an open-ended agreement, and that as they do not know how many authorities are joining they do not know how much rate support grant will be given to cover it? Is he aware that the Berkshire county council has estimated that the overheads for the scheme will be 25 per cent. of its total cost in the county, although the Ministry allows in its advice only 4 per cent. to cover those costs?

Mr. Silkin: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I doubt whether he took quite that line of argument when the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was busy taking the milk away in 1970. If I may say so, his duty is not to tell the House what should be done but to tell his own county council of Berkshire—and while he is about it he might deal with Redbridge, Solihull, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Kent, Northamptonshire, Salop and Surrey.

Mr. Jay: Would not the best way to increase consumption of these products be to reduce the price?

Mr. Silkin: That, in effect, is what free school milk means.

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman wait till after Prime Minister's Questions?

Mr. Wiggin: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to all the answers


that we have so far received, and in view of their totally unsatisfactory nature I give notice that I intend to seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

WAGES AND INFLATION (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions at Eastbourne on 30th June concerning wages and inflation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I did so on 6th July.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he spoke of Socialism in action? Where does he rank the doubling of prices in the Government's achievements, and why does he resolutely refuse to forecast inflation beyond the end of this calendar year?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. What I said I thought was Socialism in action was when the wage earners of this country voluntarily accepted restraint on their wages, in order that the pensioners of this country could have an increase that was far bigger than the increase in wages because it was related to price increases. That is my definition of Socialism in action—when the strong stand back to help the weak.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that any calls for wage moderation are bound to be unpopular but that the response that he has received from Sidney Weighell and other trade union leaders proves that his courageous and very brave stand demanding wage moderation will have a constructive response from the trade unions? The Opposition are bound to oppose it because they are constantly seeking popularity.

The Prime Minister: The Government's proposals as to what can best be afforded in the way of increased earnings in order to maintain our standards of life will, I hope, be published tomorrow, and, subject to the will of the House and the Lord President's announcement on business, I hope that we can have a full debate on the matter next week. Then, perhaps, we shall learn the attitude of the Opposition.

Mrs. Thatcher: Now that we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is work-

ing on the assumption that on his policies unemployment will rise to 1·7 million, will the Prime Minister say whether he is working on the same assumption or a different one?

The Prime Minister: That is not correct. The figures that are included in order to estimate what public expenditure is likely to be over the next three or four years are not forecasts of unemployment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is very swift this afternoon. They are assumptions that can be altered by policy changes. Indeed, since that figure was published last autumn and sent to the Government Actuary, it has already been twice revised downwards and the new figures have also been published. These variables are so great that they give a spurious precision to any idea that one can attempt to forecast unemployment two or three years ahead.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does not the Prime Minister recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the last election campaign, when all his speeches were euphoric—that any party which contemplated unemployment at a level of 1½ million was a party unfit to govern? Is it not time that he took his own medicine?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that it is true that a level of 1·5 million is unacceptable to everybody in this country. What I also know is that if the policies that have been put forward from the Opposition Dispatch Box were carried out, taking away grants and subsidies as well as other measures, there is no doubt that unemployment in this country would be very much higher than it is.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend take heart from the opinion poll today showing that there is a three-to-one majority in support of his economic policies? Is this not a clear indication that the public can distinguish between a concerned approach, such as my right hon. Friend has, and the kind of callow carping that we get from the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether it is callow carping or an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of every grievance that exists. Whichever way it is, it contrasts with the steady policy that the Government are following in this matter. That is why there is continuing support for the Government.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20th July.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Crawford: Now that the Scotland Bill is going through its penultimate stages, may I ask the Prime Minister to take time off today to give us a precise date for the referendum on the Scottish Assembly? Is he aware that the SNP will press him all the way on this matter?

The Prime Minister: Was the hon. Gentleman saying that he would press the Government or support the Government? I did not quite catch it.

Mr. Crawford: Can I tell the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman quickly put his supplementary question again so that the Prime Minister can hear it?

Mr. Crawford: Will the Prime Minister give a precise date for the holding of a referendum on the Scottish Assembly?

The Prime Minister: I was hoping to hear from the hon. Gentleman that I was to get some support from the Scottish National Party, which would be a change considering the number of times that it has voted with the Conservatives with the aim of utterly destroying the Bill which would give Scotland an Assembly. Of course we shall give urgent consideration to fixing the date of a referendum as soon as the Bill is through. Orders will have to be laid, as I understand it, which will need the consent of both Houses before we can move to that stage.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and with officials of the education authority in Kingston-upon-Thames the interesting referendum conducted among parents by that education authority about secondary education

which showed a desire for reorganisation to a non-selective system? Will he find ways and means of ensuring that these democratically expressed wishes are carried into effect as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I am interested to hear of that conclusion. It bears out the policy of the Government—namely, that the people of this country, and parents in particular, want a system of comprehensive education. I am glad to say that since we assumed office the number of children enjoying comprehensive education has increased from 60 to 80 per cent. At the same time, the number of pupils per class has declined and the number of school teachers has increased.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As it is the Government's policy to encourage early retirement, and as the Prime Minister has now passed retirement age by two years, may I ask whether his engagements for today include a visit to the Palace to inform Her Majesty when he intends to retire and whether he will suggest as his replacement his ageing Leader of the House or the electrifying Secretary of State for Energy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here.

Mr. McNamara: In view of my right hon. Friend's well-known concern for the low-paid and his earlier statement about helping the weak, may I ask whether he will be having any discussions today with the Lord Privy Seal or the Minister of State, Civil Service Department about the industrial civil servant, who is very lowly paid? Is he aware that a married man with two children—an employee of the Government on the lower band—can qualify for family income supplement? Is this not a matter which the Government should be considering?

The Prime Minister: The Lord Privy Seal is ready, through his officials or, indeed, directly, to meet the unions concerned on these matters, but there must be agreement this year to accept the guidelines that the Government laid down 12 months ago in relation to pay increases. Any rearrangement that can be made within that level can, of course, be agreed, but we cannot agree to exceptions. We have fought too hard a battle to give way at this stage.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20th July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister take more time today to reconsider the answer he gave just now in relation to the referendum? It is quite obvious that the Government have not made up their minds and are backsliding. Will he kindly give the House the date of the referendum for which the Scottish people are waiting?

The Prime Minister: It is a very odd form of backsliding to have to introduce a guillotine and to keep the House sitting late at night in order to get the Bill so that the people of Scotland can take their own decision.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: That is not an answer.

Hon. Members: It was not a question.

Mr. Buchan: In considering the referendum which the SNP is so keen about will the Prime Minister consider including a question asking whether the Scottish people would like the devaluation of the green pound on the lines suggested by the SNP this afternoon, which would mean another 75p on the cost of the family shopping basket by the end of the year?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that that question, if put, would get a resounding "No" from the canny and thrifty Scots. That is why the SNP is losing ground so fast nowadays.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20th July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Roberts: When the Prime Minister was talking about the estimated 1·7 million unemployed next year, he said that the figure had been revised downwards twice. Could he now say what, in the Government's opinion, is the latest expected unemployment figure for next

year? Could he give as free an assurance as he has given about the rate of inflation about the expected rate of unemployment, and could he say how dependent that unemployment figure is on a 5 per cent. rate of wage increases in phase 4?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the answers to all those questions, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the revised assumptions, which are, I understand, technically different from forecasts, were published in May of this year, so I suppose the Opposition will have seen them by now. As to whether the assumptions are dependable, that is a fact on which no one can comment, because—

Mr. Tebbit: Give us the numbers.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman did not ask the supplementary question—a number of differing factors make up the level of unemployment, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) knows. If, for example, world trade improves—as I trust it will, following our discussions at Bonn last weekend—that in itself will have a favourable influence, and there are other matters of this sort.

Mr. Newens: Has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the deplorable sentences imposed on Soviet dissidents? Does he not agree that it would, even in these circumstances, be totally wrong for us to lessen our efforts to achieve detente? Would it not also be desirable that we should be far more consistent in our denunciation of the abuses of human rights in places like Iran, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, about which so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are silent?

The Prime Minister: The Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made their views known to the Soviet Government about the sentences that have been passed. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary, in the interests of world peace, to pursue the prospects of getting agreements both on a comprehensive test ban treaty and on strategic arms limitation talks. Nor do I rule out, as some seem to do, direct contacts between Soviet citizens and organisations and our own citizens and organisations. I believe it is valuable, provided that we make clear to Soviet organisations what our position is, as I assume


the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday when she met the Soviet Ambassador. If she was not contaminated, I do not believe anybody else need be.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the Prime Minister may be presumed to be interested in the advance warnings which are available of the sort of catastrophe which arise from advanced forms of Socialism, is there any possibility of his having an early conversation with his opposite number, the Prime Minister of Sweden, to discuss with him the appalling financial consequences for that Government of the present attempts to salvage the shipbuilding industry?

Hon. Members: It is a Tory Government.

The Prime Minister: As far as I can remember, the Swedish shipbuilding industry prospered when there was a Socialist Government and has come to grief now that there is a Conservative Government. I think the same would be true in this country.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to today's Questions, may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that forestry is not an unimportant responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? We had a forestry Question, Question No. 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), but in the course of 40 minutes we were able only to reach Agriculture Question No. 10.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. He will remember that I appealed more than once for shorter questions and answers. But every time I moved on from a Question today there were a large number of hon. Members still standing. I am sorry that we did not reach forestry.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the number of times that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) rose to ask agricultural questions, is not this a case of Peyton rebuking sin?

Mr. Speaker: Not exactly. The right hon. Gentleman took the place of somebody else who would have been called on the Opposition side.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week and after?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I should like to indicate the business of the House until the Summer Adjournment.
The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 24TH JULY—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on unemployment.
At 10 o'clock the Questions will be put on all outstanding Votes.
Motion on the Dock Labour Scheme 1978.
TUESDAY 25TH JULY—Debate on the economy, including the White Paper on inflation.
WEDNESDAY 26TH JULY—Any Lords Messages on the Scotland and Wales Bills and on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill.
THURSDAY 27TH JULY—Proceedings on the Dividends Bill.
FRIDAY 28TH JULY—Motion on the Valuation List (Second Postponement) Order.
Motions on Ministers' and Members' Salaries, Allowance and Pensions.
Motion on the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) Session 1977–78 on New Building for Parliament.
MONDAY 31ST JULY—Lords amendments to the Transport Bill.
Motions on the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations and on the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations.
TUESDAY 1ST AUGUST—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2ND AUGUST—Debate on Rhodesia.
THURSDAY 3RD AUGUST—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m. for the Summer Recess until Tuesday 24th October.
The House may also be asked, Mr. Speaker, to consider any other Lords amendments and delegated legislation which may be received.

Mrs. Thatcher: Sticking strictly to next week, may I ask the Lord President two questions? First, he will be aware that the Dividends Bill has not yet been published. When may we expect it? It is very quick and unusual to take a Bill in the House only a few days after it is published. Secondly, is he expecting to take Tuesday's debate on the economy on a motion?

Mr. Foot: On the first question, the Dividends Bill will be published tomorrow. There has been quite a lot of discussion about the prospect over recent weeks. I hope that tomorrow we shall also table a motion for the debate on Tuesday.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With regard to the business for next week, for the debate on Tuesday 1st August on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by noon on Thursday 27th July their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The Ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate will cover all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 212 and 230, and the Supplementary and Revised Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers 536, 537 and 538. It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the Ballot later, on 27th July.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite what you have just said, can you confirm that it will be in

order for any hon. Member who catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair to say anything he pleases that is within the rules of order on the Consolidated Fund Bill, though it has not been balloted for?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but the operative words are "any hon. Member who catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair."

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on Rhodesia takes the very widest form? It is essential that we should discuss all the implications of the situation before the House adjourns.

Mr. Foot: I expect that the debate will take place on the Adjournment. I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be satisfactory to the House.

Mr. Tebbit: Can the Lord President describe a little more closely the procedures by which we shall tackle the Dividends Bill in one way? Will there not have to be some slightly unusual procedures in order to achieve that? Can he also say whether the Government intend to make that Bill an issue of confidence?

Mr. Foot: I think that we should see how we proceed. I have announced the proceedings on the Bill today, and I hope that we can get them through in one day. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Had I gone further than that in my first announcement, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain.

Mr. Kinnock: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 543 on the Order Paper, standing in my name and in the names of 121 colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party? I acknowledge the Government's difficulties in the matter of the Chilean aero-engines, but I ask my right hon. Friend, as a friend of freedom, to take the strongest possible line and ensure that in the course of next week we have a statement to show that the Government are prepared to put pressure on the Chilean junta slightly above the technical considerations of the Fascist air force's ownership of those engines.

[That this House is opposed to the return to the Government of Chile of the Rolls-Royce Avon engines.]

Mr. Foot: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken a whole series of measures over the past two years which have indicated the present Government's attitude towards the present Chilean regime. I do not believe that any Member of the House or anybody in the country can be in any doubt about that. Whether it will be desirable to have a statement on the subject next week, I am not prepared to say now. But no doubt my hon. Friend saw the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week regarding the date of the referendum, bearing in mind that today he has indicated that Parliament will be in recess until 24th October and that, in view of the six weeks' notice that is required, we have a position whereby the earliest date for the referendum after that is December? Is it not time that we had some kind of forward planning of the time-scale to know when the referendum will take place?

Mr. Foot: I think that what the House should do is to pass the Bill, get the Act on the statute book, have the Royal Assent, and then we can see how the legislation should proceed on that matter. There is plenty of time for all that to happen.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in recent weeks he has acknowledged freely the Government's undertaking to table a motion concerning the way in which we deal with EEC orders and, in particular, the responsibility of Ministers of any Government? In view of the Prime Minister's letter to the NEC last October about the freedom of Governments and national Parliaments, how does my right hon. Friend view the fact that he has not announced such a motion, and how can this Parliament be free if we do not discuss the matter before the end of this Session?

Mr. Foot: I am fully aware of the whole background to this question, but there is another Thursday before the recess when an announcement can be made about the completion of our business. That may be the time for me to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Hal Miller: In view of the shoddy manner of the dismissal of the chairman of the Redditch development corporation and the appointment of somebody without the relevant experience at a critical time in the corporation's history, and in view, indeed, of the proliferation of quangos and the appointment thereto of people with connection with Ministers and members of the Labour Party, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the advance of the corporate State and the position of these quangos?

Mr. Foot: I have read a whole heap of nonsense about quangos and the alleged advance of the corporate State in the newspapers over recent weeks. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he seems to have added even to that rubbishy total.

Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend arrange, before the House goes into recess, for the Government to make a statement on the extraordinary statement of the chairman of the British Gas Corporation that gas prices might well go up in spite of a record profit of £180 mililon? Can it also be made clear that the future financing of the capital programme of that corporation is a matter for this Parliament and not solely a matter for the chairman of the corporation?

Mr. Foot: Of course, these are all matters in which Parliament takes an interest and on which it has every right to give its view. But whether there should be a statement on the subject before we go into recess is another matter. If my hon. Friend or others wish to raise this matter in the considerable opportunities that remain before we depart for the recess, that is for him and for some other hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Cormack: May we please have a statement next week on the Government's attitude towards the Select Committee report on the National Land Fund? Will the Lord President also tell us how much business is left for 24th October?

Mr. Foot: On the first matter, I cannot promise any statement, and I am not sure whether it is essential for the House to have such a statement, but I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that there is still a further opportunity when I would be able to give an


indication to the hon. Gentleman and the House about the exact business which we might assemble to conduct on 24th October.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 30th July last year, the last day on which the House sat before the recess, television licences were increased, even though two days earlier the Home Office had blatantly denied any knowledge of an increase? Will he give an assurance that this will not happen again? Will he look at the Early-Day Motion put down yesterday, signed by 100 Labour Back-Benchers and handed in last night, calling for a different system of television licensing? If the licence is to be increased before the end of the Session and before the election, may we have a debate on it here and now?

[That this House considers that the television licence should be abolished and the finance for the British Broadcasting Corporation should be provided out of taxation and out of the proceeds of the independent television levy.]

Mr. Foot: I have seen the motion put down by my hon. Friend and signed by others of my hon. Friends. There will be a statement next week on the Annan report. I believe that that is the proper time for my hon. Friend to put similar questions to the Home Secretary on the subject.

Mr. Biffen: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Dividends Bill is not a Money Bill and, therefore, that it will have to be considered in another place? Will he indicate whether, in our arrangements before the recess, there is a slot when this House will have the opportunity of considering any Lords amendments that might arise therefrom?

Mr. Foot: It is not money Bill. Therefore, it would have to go through another place. Who can tell whether another place would wish to pass any amendments to such a short and satisfactory Bill? But if it did wish to do so, I have no doubt that the House of Commons is fully capable of dealing with it.

Mr. Molloy: In view of the phoney trials that have taken place recently in the Soviet Union and of the appalling behaviour of the Government in Chile in perpetrating atrocities almost daily,

would it not be a good thing for this House, before we rise for the Easter Recess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Summer."]—the Summer Recess—to debate human rights?
I hope that Conservative Members will join us and take more cognisance of the seriousness of this aspect than of any trivial lapsus linguae.
This is an issue which is giving great concern to many ordinary people in our country and in many other countries throughout the world. It would be a good thing for this House of Commons to declare itself.

Mr. Foot: I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said about the great importance of all the subjects that he has mentioned, but I do not think that it is necessary for the House of Commons to have a special debate on those different matters to make its views known. I believe that many speakers in the House have made their views very clear on those matters on a number of occasions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Why cannot we have a social contract voluntary agreement on dividends, just as we have on pay? Why must there be legislation on it? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the next Session of Parliament will start? Will it be when we come back in October?

Mr. Foot: On the second point, I do not think that I should hazard any further guesses now. As I have said, we shall have plenty of time to consider that matter.
The subject of dividends can be debated by the hon. Member on Thursday if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. That is what the debate is for. It is to decide whether the views of the hon. Gentleman, or our views, for assisting the nation in this respect should prevail.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be extremely regrettable, to say the least, if he failed to carry out his repeated promise to introduce, in this Session, a resolution dealing with the better control of EEC legislation? Why cannot he honour that promise now?

Mr. Foot: I do not have anything to add to what I said in reply to the previous question. I am fully aware of the debate


that we had in the House and of the undertaking which I gave.

Mr. Sainsbury: May I press the Leader of the House further on the question of providing time for a debate on human rights? May I draw his attention, in particular, to Early-Day Motion No. 525, which has been signed by over 200 Members in all parts of the House? That number of signatures indicates the concern felt in this House that we should have an opportunity to discuss this matter, which bears directly upon our relations with many countries, in particular the Soviet Union?

[That this House expresses its revulsion and that of the British people at the trials of Anatoly Shcharansky and Alexander Ginsburg and the suppression of human rights in the Soviet Union; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take appropriate action.]

Mr. Foot: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern felt in all parts of the House about this issue of human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) has tabled a motion on this matter, signed by 176 Labour Members. Of course it is a question that arouses widespread concern among my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I believe, in all parts of the House. I believe that that motion has served an excellent purpose in making the views of the House widely known. But I do not think that it is necessary to have a full debate on the subject, desirable though that may be in certain circumstances. In any case, as I have already said, there is considerable pressure upon business in the House before we adjourn.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by deciding to adjourn on Thursday instead of Friday he has eliminated the possibility of a debate on the Civil Service based on the reports of the Expenditure Committee and the Government's observations upon the first of those reports? Surely the Civil Service is a subject of importance to us all, which might, perhaps, be better dealt with before we find ourselves in any other political circumstances which might occur later in this Parliament, or just after its dissolution? Could we not consider the

question of the Civil Service before we adjourn?

Mr. Foot: There is a good argument for a debate on the subject. I have no doubt that at some stage the House must debate the report of the Committee over which my hon. Friend presided and the Government's response. However, I do not believe that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the debate on the day suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not a question of eliminating a debate on that subject. I had thought that there was more likely to be criticism of the proposal to sit until the Thursday.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To protect the business covered by the timetable motion, I must ask for briefer questions. It is unlikely that I shall be able to call everyone.

Mr. Gow: Will the Lord President tell the House how many clauses there will be in the Bill to control dividends? Will he tell the House how long will be allocated for the Committee stage of that Bill and how long there will be for Third Reading?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see the Bill. In response to the request from the right hon. Lady, I made it clear that the Bill would be published tomorrow. The House will be able to see that it is a nice, short, sweet Bill. I am sure it could pass through the House of Commons in that kind of atmosphere.

Mr. Rooker: Can my right hon. Friend find time before the Summer Recess to debate the Second Reading of the Ten-Minute Bill which I successfully introduced on Tuesday, along with a debate on the relevant Early-Day Motion, No. 472, so that Government supporters can have a bit more time than I had on Tuesday to compare the comments in 1956 of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, as he was then, with the actions of big business in the 1970s?

[That this House notes that the Chairman of the Conservative Party is also Chairman of Pirelli Limited, a firm found to have participated in an illegal price fixing ring; and calls upon the Chairman of the Conservative Party to keep his mouth firmly shut on the issues of law and


order, morality and public expenditure in the forthcoming General Election.]

Mr. Foot: I cannot say that that matter can be pressed during any consideration of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend although, as I have indicated already, there are other opportunities before we depart for private Members to return to some of these subjects.

Mr. Adley: Referring to the comments of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) about friends of freedom, would the Lord President remind the House of the Prime Minister's words that the Chilean aero-engines belong to the Chilean Government and have been held in this country for four years, and that if we are to talk about freedom, our prime concern should be freedom under the law in this country? So long as right hon. and hon. Friends of the Leader of the House and certain members of certain trade unions insist on defying the law of this country and court orders, we ought, instead of worrying about other people's freedom, to be worrying about our own.

Mr. Foot: All these factors were taken into account in the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. But I think it would be of benefit to people throughout the world and particularly to those suffering the great hardships of imprisonment in Chile, if, for once, from the Opposition Benches a voice were raised speaking up for freedom there, too. The Government of this country have taken a whole series of actions which express the real attitude of freedom lovers in this country on that subject.

Mr. Anderson: Will there be an announcement next week on the fourth television channel as it affects Wales? For the convenience of hon. Members, could my right hon. Friend give a solemn and binding undertaking that the House will resume on 24th October?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend must not tempt me too much on the second matter. All Leaders of the House who announce the date when the House reassembles after the Summer Recess have to make that statement subject to events that might occur. That will be indicated, no doubt, when we come to the Adjournment debate.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I ask him to await the statement on the Annan

report which the Home Secretary will be making next week.

Mr. David Price: Reverting to next Tuesday's business, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is rather important that the House should have a substantive motion on two very important matters on which I am sure the Prime Minister would like the views of the House. One is the result of the Bonn conference and the second is the Government's White Paper on pay policy. I am sure it is right that before we adjourn the House should express specific approval or disapproval, as the case may be, on these two very important matters.

Mr. Foot: I shall certainly take into account the representations of the hon. Gentleman in the framing of the motion, which we hope to put down tomorrow.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is another basic freedom called "the right to work" which the free world does not seem to handle very well? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are 70 million people on the dole. In that context, is it not a disgrace that we have never had a chance to debate the Franco-German plan which came from Bremen and which will assist the West Germans in dominating our economy and assist the French in ensuring that the CAP remains with us for ever? Will not this affect our dole queues, and should we not debate it rather than let the non-elected, pro-Common Market civil servants look at it in private?

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of looking at these matters in private.

Mr. Skinner: That is what they are doing.

Mr. Foot: No, it is a question of discussion. The Government make their proposals on all these matters, and the House can debate them. The House will have some discussion on these matters on Monday and some discussion on them on Tuesday. I believe that in all these discussions, and in those in the country generally, there will be an increasing recognition of the leading part which this country has played internationally in assisting in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Of course, there has to be a whole range of measures on other matters as well, but I do not believe for


that reason that this House, or anybody in the House, should decry the efforts that this Government have made—more than those of almost any other country in the world—to try to show how we can take an international approach to the problem.

Mrs. Bain: In the light of the demonstration today by London civil servants against the possibility of their jobs being transferred to Glasgow, and in the light of the Government's own manifesto commitments to jobs dispersal to that area, can we expect, before the recess, an announcement as to which Civil Service jobs will be dispersed for local recruitment, because the transfer of unwilling Londoners to Glasgow does nothing to solve our unemployment problem?

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that there can be a statement on the particular aspects of the matter that the hon. Lady raises, but the Government have made clear their general commitment to a programme of dispersal. I believe that that can be of assistance to people in Scotland and in other parts of the country. I think that it is unwise for the hon. Lady to decry those efforts.

Mr. Litterick: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the General Electric Company announced the appointment of a man called Angus Ogilvy to its board of directors and that this person not too long ago was obliged to resign from 26 directorships in something of a hurry, not to put too fine a point on it? Coming as it does—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that if he is referring to a member of the Royal Family—

Mr. Litterick: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member does not know I shall tell him. He knows that we must refer courteously, and without casting reflections on them, to members of the Royal Family. That has been the order in this House for centuries.

Mr. Litterick: Perhaps some time, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me what the code is. However, following, as it does, so recently on the revelation that the chairman of the Conservative Party, as chairman of another great business organisation, was involved in a massive fraud of the Post Office—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows—it has been indicated earlier this week—that it is quite out of order to make a statement of that sort about a member of another place—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. —and he must withdraw that statement at once.

Mr. Litterick: To whom was I referring?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman told the House to whom he was referring. He said it was the chairman of the Conservative Party, who is a member of another place.

Mr. Litterick: In view then of other events of which you are well aware, Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the House would let me handle this. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that statement at once.

Mr. Litterick: Yes, all right.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Hefferrose—

Mr. Litterick: Do we understand each other now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn?

Mr. Litterick: Yes. Is it not therefore time that this House at least had a debate on the quality of Britain's top management and seriously considered setting up a Royal Commission to investigate the senior management of our large business organisations?

Mr. Foot: I think that the chances of setting up a Royal Commission before we adjourn for the recess are very small. I do not think we have much chance even of setting up a Republican Commission, which is what I might favour myself.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take business questions after four o'clock.

Mr. Ridley: Referring to the Dividends Bill, which is very important because of the damage it may do to many pension funds, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the proper interval


will take place between Second Reading and the start of the Committee stage upstairs? Would it not be kind to hon. Members who are to sit on that Committee to give them a little notice, because it will interfere with our holidays? I should be delighted to volunteer, but would the Leader of the House tell his hon. Friends who are to sit on the Committee? Could he also say when he will recall the House in order to consider the Report stage?

Mr. Foot: Any volunteering from the hon. Gentleman has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion. I therefore approach the matter in that mood. As I have indicated before, I think that it would be perfectly satisfactory for the House to carry through this measure on that day. I hope that the House will approach the matter in that light.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Loyden—the last question.

Mr. Loyden: May I ask the Lord President whether, in view of the serious situation existing in the docks industry, he could give further time on Monday next to the debate on the dock labour scheme?

Mr. Foot: I shall consider it, but I cannot give a promise. I should have thought that we would be able to deal with the order in the normal hour and a half. I accept fully what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the matter, but there is also the question of how late the vote should take place, and that also has to be taken into account.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask your indulgence because I am a little confused. When hon. Members raise in the House matters which they think are fact but which other people think are not fact, what exactly are we to do? If such matters impinge upon the Royal Family or the chairman of the Conservative Party, who happens to be a member of the House of Lords, but if hon. Members in all honesty believe that they are factual matters and nothing else, what exactly is the position then of ordinary simple Back-Bench Members

such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick)? How can we raise matters of fact and then be ruled out of order and asked to withdraw statements that hon. Members think are perfectly legitimate on the basis of facts as they understand them?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is a good House of Commons man, that he knows as well as any other hon. Member in the Chamber this afternoon where the line should be drawn. When personal attacks are made on a member of another place they have to be stopped. In another place, the members are not allowed to make personal attacks on Members of this House.
Secondly, with regard to the Royal Family it is clearly laid down in "Erskine May", and it accords with the good taste of every hon. Member in the House, that we should speak with respect of the Royal Family.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Lord President of the Council to voice republican sympathies within the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: That is a good old custom that goes back a very long way.

Mr. Raison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Lord President of Her Majesty's Privy Council and the Leader of this House to stand at the Dispatch Box as he just has done and declare republican principles?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's statements which obliges me to prevent him from speaking. If hon. Members will read Hansard for the past century they will find many similar statements.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kinnock: Here is the last century.

Mr. Stokes: Will you, Mr. Speaker, have discussions with both sides of the House in relation to the broadcasting of the procedures of the House which many hon. Members now feel are bringing the House into contempt with the public?

Mr. Speaker: I always have chats with both sides of the House about the running of the affairs of the House and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. Mr. Ridley—the last point of order, I hope.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did reply to an hon. Member opposite to the effect that we were not able to say anything discourteous about any member of the Royal Family and you quoted "Erskine May" in support of that. I think the whole House subscribes to that, but I put it to you that it is extraordinarily discourteous to the Head of the Royal Family, Her Majesty the Queen, to say that one would prefer to have not a Royal Commission but a Republican Commission. I should have thought that if ever there were a flagrant example of a statement made in the House going exactly counter to the statement that you have just made about "Erskine May", it was the remarks made by the Lord President a few moments ago. I ask him to withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had not thought that a sense of humour had entirely departed from the House. If Her Majesty the Queen asked me to apologise or withdraw, of course I should be very eager and would do so immediately. When I see her, I hope next week, I shall ask her and I shall set the matter as right as soon as courtesy and common decency can. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recover his sense of humour. The rest of the House is well in advance of him on this matter.

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 60

POWER OF ASSEMBLY TO ASSUME FUNCTIONS OF CERTAIN BODIES

Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 25, line 1, leave out Clause 60.

4.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendment no. 68.

Mr. Morris: I was very cheered yesterday to be complimented on being sweet and reasonable in the way in which I moved the rejection of an amendment. I hope that, without causing too much anxiety to my reputation, the same compliment will be paid at the end of my speech today.
I begin by hoping that we are on common ground when I say that there is a great deal of interest in Wales about the future of the nominated bodies. They have grown over the years—I hope, again, that we are on common ground—and last night I basked in the praise of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales, which was all coming from the Opposition Front Bench. This Government, having set those bodies up, had every right to feel pleased.
We are also, I hope, on common ground when I say that if one looks at the situation logically one sees that the more interventionist a Government the greater the need for particular tools for the job in hand. If a Government are not interventionist, if there is a massive cut-down of public expenditure, those tools will of themselves wither away. Indeed, if we had the misfortune—and here I depart from common ground—of having the Conservative Party in power, I am sure


that there would be a withering away of those bodies because of the cut in public expenditure which we hear about day after day from the Opposition. That is their intention and their aim.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)rose—

Mr. Morris: Since I gave way about a dozen times yesterday, my brief took a long time. Nevertheless, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Anderson: Again in the spirit of seeking common ground, as the people my right hon. and learned Friend has himself appointed to these bodies are of such undoubted competence, does he not sometimes fear that possibly the other people appointed by the Assembly may not be so competent as those whom he himself has appointed?

Mr. Morris: Of course, the matter of the people I appoint is being argued about. I was seeking to enlist the support of everyone on matters on which there is agreement. I hope not to enter into a discussion of that kind in the course of this afternoon, as we are dealing with the narrow ground of the rejection of the Lords amendment. The fact that I feel confident about my appointees is another matter, of course. I do not wish to develop that in the course of this debate, but I am always ready and willing to do so if necessary.
I have referred to what I hope are matters of common ground. I think that it is right in debates of this kind to establish the area of disagreement having first established the area of agreement, as I think it helps to sharpen the debate. What we are not agreed upon, I am sure, is the reason for the interest taken by people in Wales in the nominated bodies. The interest on this side of the House, be they for or against the devolution Bill, is how to democratise these bodies. I hope that there is not too great a difference between some of my hon. Friends and myself on this. Where there are differences between us, they are on other matters, certainly not on the need to democratise these bodies. The interest of the Opposition is wholly different. We have argued on other occasions about their wish to perpetuate the power to appoint. I fully understand that, and I

am sure my hon. Friends do so in the same way. But again, I am not developing that point this afternoon.
I believe that we can democratise these bodies. That means that they should not be appointed by me, or my successors, or at some future date—I hope long delayed—possibly by a Tory successor. These bodies, rather than be appointed by a Minister, however well intentioned—I enjoyed the compliment of my hon. Friend—and allowing the whim of a Minister, albeit a Labour Minister or, as happens from time to time, a Tory Minister, it is right and better for these bodies to come within the purview of the Assembly.
The simplest course, that will attract many, will be to abolish the bodies. That is not so easy. Some operate outside Wales. Two examples are the Welsh National Water Development Authority, and the Severn Trent Authority. Geography and, more so, hydrography do not always respect territorial boundaries. That is why these bodies have been formed and remain. That is one reason why abolishing the bodies in question would not be the best course.
But what we have proposed is that bodies operating wholly in Wales in the devolved spheres should be dissolved and appointed by the Assembly, not by a Minister. The bodies which have remits extending outside Wales should be made accountable to the Welsh Assembly for their Welsh activities under clause 59.
The aim is to replace the indirect control of nominated bodies by Parliament through the Secretary of State—we have heard time after time of dissatisfaction on this score—with the control and scrutiny of the Assembly. That is the first object —the transfer of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the directly elected body.
Leaving the first stage, one comes to the second stage—the initiative of the Assembly once the responsibility for these bodies has been transferred to it. The Assembly may assume the functions of a particular body. It may, or may not, wish to do so overnight. The Assembly may wish to retain the form of a body while in essence the substance of the powers would have been transferred from the Minister to the Assembly. I hope no one here will confuse the form with the


substance, because the essence of the proposal is the transfer of the substance from a Minister to the Assembly.
It may well be that the Assembly will deem it right to ensure that there is a smooth transition period. That is a matter for the Assembly. It is this power, this narrow ground on which we are now arguing, which has been deleted by another place.
If the Assembly decides that it wants a particular body to continue in its present form, it may appoint its own members to be the sole members of that body. It may appoint its own members with others who are not members of the Assembly, it may appoint its own members with others who are members of the Assembly, or it may appoint only people who are not members of the Assembly to man a particular body. That is at the discretion of the Assembly. If it subsumes the body in question, the Assembly could run its affairs through one of its committees or in any other way open to it.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: Could not that power sometimes be objectionable? For example, the Welsh Tourist Board receives its funds from this Parliament. It is designed, as are the Scottish and English Tourist Boards, to be part of the British Tourist Authority. If the Assembly should choose to end, to displace or to alter radically the Welsh Tourist Board, would that not be objectionable in a United Kingdom context?

Mr. Morris: I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) because I shall soon come to deal with anything that might offend wider national interests. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me if I do not fully reply to his point at the moment. Of course, the Welsh Tourist Board will look to the Assembly for its funds. I believe that, given the safeguard to which I shall come in a moment, it is right and proper for a body of that type to be covered by the proposal that is before the House.
I was saying that if the Assembly decides to continue a body, it may appoint its own members, or it may appoint them together with others, or it may appoint others alone. However, if it subsumes a

body, it could run a specific activity through one of its committees, or in any other way open to it. All these matters would be within the discretion of the Assembly and I should not seek to add to or subtract from what we have proposed in that context.
Whichever course is adopted, I believe that we shall achieve a much higher degree of participation from those who are directly elected. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will go a long way in exercising its discretion where practicable. The bodies to which I have referred deal with difficult problems.
When people participate in decisions, it is easier to bear their consequences than those of decisions that are imposed upon them. In my time at the Welsh Office, my decisions and those of health authorities, for instance, have caused a great deal of anxiety. So many bodies operate in areas where decisions are exceedingly difficult and priorities have to be balanced. In those circumstances, the more difficult a decision is the more acceptable it is if people have participated in taking it. That is a simple yet fundamental democratic principle which I commend to the House.
I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Barry. Although the initiative would lie with the Welsh Assembly whether it wished to subsume a particular body, it would need the formal approval of the Secretary of State. The reason is that which the hon. Member gave: to ensure that the wider interest of the United Kingdom is properly protected. I hope that my explanation has allayed the hon. Member's fears.
I believe, finally, that the proposal would achieve a significant degree of democratisation. Having considered the matter as a result of the decision of the other place, I feel particularly sore that there should be an attempt by another place to thwart our aim of extending democracy. While we may disagree in this House of Commons on our interpretation of democracy—and we do disagree on it, day in and day out—I say in sorrow rather than in anger that I do not take it kindly for another place to thwart us in our attempts to extend democracy.
I commend to the House our proposal that we should disagree with the other place.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We have just had five or 10 minutes of generalisations, but we have not been required by the Secretary of State to look at the practical consequences of the measure that he proposes. I intend to do that.
We are not arguing whether these bodies come within the purview of the Assembly. It is not this clause that brings them within the Assembly's purview. We are not arguing whether they are appointed by the Assembly. It is not this clause that provides the Assembly with those powers. We are not arguing about replacing indirect control by direct control and scrutiny. Without this clause the Assembly can exercise those powers.
The Secretary of State said that we were discussing very narrow ground. That was the phrase that he used at one time. But it is not narrow. We are arguing about the existence of the bodies at all. As far as the nominated bodies operating solely in Wales are concerned, that is about as wide a consideration as there could be.
I referred previously to clause 60 as the abolition or extermination clause. It is based on the premise that all nominated bodies are unpopular, so we should allow the Assembly to wipe them off the map. It sounds good. We can use words such as "democratisation", as the Secretary of State did. We can get in our shallow jibes at another place, which has rendered a considerable service by returning these amendments so that they could be debated by the elected House of Commons after the Government had imposed a guillotine to prevent that debate.
We should pause to consider the consequences of the Government's action. The first thing to realise is that Clause 60 was drafted in so tortuous a manner that it seems positively designed to produce obscurity. The essential point is that, if ail the ministerial powers of appointment are transferred to the Assembly, the Assembly can, with the Secretary of State's consent, wipe out the body and carry out the function itself, regardless how many other appointments may be made outside bodies, and without any obligation to consult those outside bodies about its action.

Mr. John Morris: Clause 60(3) provides:

after consultation with the body to which it relates.

Mr. Edwards: The Secretary of State did not listen. I said that there was no obligation for the Assembly to consult the bodies that make the appointments—many of them distinguished and prominent organisations which do considerable service to the State. I repeat that a body with a membership of, say, 20 could be subsumed—to use his other horrid phrase —if only two of the appointments were made by the Minister and those powers had been transferred to the Assembly.
I take as an example the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales. Organisations that make appointments include the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in Wales, the Society of Antiquaries the Royal Academy, the RIBA, the trustees of the British Museum, and so on. These are the kinds of bodies that are entitled to nominate members, and the Minister nominates additional members. That body can be taken over, and its work can be carried on by the Assembly, without the consent of these learned bodies and simply on the authority of the Secretary of State of the day. Of course, the Secretary of State has no obligation at all to seek the consent of this Parliament.
There are considerable doubts about which bodies—all of them established by statute—can, in fact, have their existence terminated in this summary way. The Government have failed to produce a comprehensive list. A list of principal bodies was extracted in a Written Answer on 16th March 1978, but it is not complete. The list that was given then was as follows:
Ancient Monuments Board for Wales.
Area Health Authorities.
Central Advisory Council for Education (Wales).
Development Board for Rural Wales.
Historic Buildings Council for Wales.
Land Authority for Wales.
Library Advisory Council (Wales).
New Town Development Corporations.
Wales Tourist Board.
Welsh Development Agency."—[Official Report. 16th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 339.]
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson added to that list the community health councils and the National Parks Council.
In a previous debate, I was confined by the rules of order to presenting an argument about the Welsh Development


Agency and the DBRW. I will say a word about them later. But on this occasion, perhaps it is not inappropriate to start with the community health councils. After all, we are supposed to be considering a measure designed to bring Government closer to the people.
It is a little startling to discover that the community health councils, the groups representing community interests in the health service at the most local level, can without legislation—without reference to the Parliament that created them —be wiped out and replaced by a committee of elected members sitting in Cardiff only a handful of whom could speak for any locality. This is supposed to be the great advance towards popular participation in government.
Of course, the Minister will say that the Assembly would do nothing of the kind, though a few minutes ago he was urging the Assembly to go a long way along this road. But whatever assertion he makes, it remains but an assertion—it is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. If Parliament decides to set up local representative bodies of this kind, surely it should be consulted before they are wiped out. I remember we debated them at great length in this House, and hon. Members on all sides expressed strong views about their form and the functions that they should carry out.
I take as examples the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales. They have rightly always been composed of people with a particular knowledge or interest in the subject. We have already seen that many of the appointments are made by learned bodies who have a special contribution to make, not least because they are concerned with the preservation of our heritage on a United Kingdom basis. Our historic buildings and sites are important not just to the Welsh people—although we treasure them with particular pride—but to all peoples of these islands whose common heritage we share.
4.30 p.m.
In our recent discussions on the Welsh Arts Council which, as a charter body, is not directly affected by this clause although it is affected by other provisions in the Bill, the Under-Secretary of State made it clear that he shared the Oppo-

sition's view that the administration of the arts was best carried out without direct interference from politicians. It would have been hard to argue that art patronage and the care and preservation of our heritage were subjects best dealt with by an elected committee of politicians. The Ancient Monuments Board is composed largely of archaeologists and historians, and the Library Advisory Council—another threatened body—is, not surprisingly, heavily salted with librarians.
Before I leave the subject of these learned bodies and those concerned with the heritage, I may say that many people interested in the arts are desperately concerned to hear that the Welsh Arts Council can be simply starved out of existence by the Assembly. The Assembly does not need this clause to do the job. It can simply allocate the funds for the arts in Wales in an entirely different way and provide none for the Welsh Arts Council as it now exists. It can, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson points out, seek to administer the arts in Wales through what he describes as a "committee of culture", which does not inspire me with great confidence in the future of the arts in Wales.
Worse still, apparently it is the Government's firm view that the British Arts Council will no longer have responsibility for the arts on a United Kingdom basis. After devolution, that council will be responsible only for England, and thus there will no longer be a body able to take a comprehensive British view about our shared culture and our common heritage. I was told at a conference on the arts held in London this week that this is a matter of great concern to all those actively engaged in all aspects of the arts.
Ministers of the present Government have stood at the Dispatch Box so often and argued the case for having relatively small bodies of experts in particular subjects and presented the unanswerable argument that exists for having special nominated bodies to deal with special problems that it is not possible for them to throw the Opposition's arguments overboard quite so casually in the interests of democracy. Are they now suggesting that the Wales Tourist Board would do a more effective job for tourism in Wales if it were formed by a committee of the


Assembly, with no representatives of the trade present?
It is already of concern to those involved in the tourist industry that the political nominees of the Assembly will in future be a dominant bloc in the BTA and that the trade representatives will be a minority. There is equal concern at the practice of the present Secretary of State of using the board as a home for those whom he wants to privilege with his political patronage.
But at least the trade has the knowledge that some of the most active figures in Welsh tourism are members of the board, using their invaluable experience and expertise for the general good. What possible grounds are there for suggesting that their job would be carried out better by an Assembly?
So it is as we go down the list. The Secretary of State referred to the area health authorities, and suggested that it was a great advance in the cause of democracy that they might be taken over by the elected committees of the Assembly. But one major criticism of the area health authorities is that they are too large and too remote from the people.
We should be examining the possibility of devolving management decisions down to the district level, rather than taking them away to Cardiff and making them far more remote from the people. Surely the Government cannot really contemplate a transfer of responsibility from the area health authorities to Cardiff. If so, it goes totally in the face of every recommendation that has been made by almost every political party about the way the health service should be organised.
Consider the new town corporations. Government policy hitherto has been to transfer housing and assets gradually to local government. Is it conceivable that we should now move in the opposite direction? Is that what they want in Cwmbran and Newtown? Every time I pose this question, Ministers mumble "Of course not". They say that there is no reason to think that the Assembly would do anything of the kind. If that is the case, why include the clause?
I have almost completed the list of buildings affected by the clause and I have not yet found one which would be run more effectively by a committee sit-

ting in Cardiff. I challenge the Secretary of State to name a single organisation on my list that he believes should be subsumed. Which of the nominated bodies would do the job better as an elected committee sitting in Cardiff? He must have one or two in mind. If he has not, there is no reason to include the clause.
It is a strange basis for legislation to say that we think that moves in this direction would be a mistake and that we think it highly improbable that the Assembly will wish to move in that direction, but that, none the less, it should be free to act in this way if it wishes. To do the Secretary of State credit, that is not the argument he has advanced. He hopes that they will go a long way in this direction, but we should know how the Secretary of State would like to see the Assembly carry out those firm instructions. I find it inconceivable that the Government should insist on the reinstatement of this clause unless they have those clear objectives in view and understand what improvements they think could be made.
We have been told that it is all in the cause of democracy, but that can hardly be so. Without the clause, the Assembly can debate the affairs of these bodies, appoint many of their members, give or withhold funds, probe, examine and call for papers and witnesses. By insisting on the replacement of the clause, the Government are apparently proclaiming a new doctrine that the work of protecting historic buildings, developing tourism and advising on libraries is better carried out by politicians than by those with special knowledge. Even more extraordinary is the view that the way to decentralise and make more responsive the control of health and hospitals is by concentrating the functions entirely in Cardiff.
Perhaps the Government have only two other bodies in mind—the two most important that I have not referred to, namely the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I advanced on 3rd May for retaining the separate identity of these bodies, the work of which was further debated last night. I shall simply confine myself to two main points. First, the worst way to take balanced commercial decisions about industrial investment is to place the job in the hands of politicians


with strong local interests. That is not a controversial view, at least with the Secretary of State. He talked a lot about common ground at the outset. As I understand it, that is the view of the Secretary of State. In 1975, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The agency will be expected to act on its own initiative to seek our opportunities and directly involve itself in industry. This type of entrepreneurial role is best formed by an agency."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 693.]
My second point is that the Government have made clear that they see these bodies—the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency—as instruments of central economic policy. The Government will issue directives. The Secretary of State forcibly argued last night that it was perfectly sensible to devolve control of the development agency because there would be a clear division of responsibility. He said that the agency would be responsible to the Assembly for its social functions, but that, of course, he would continue to control its economic functions. Last night he rested his case almost entirely on his power to issue directives.
It is one thing to say to the Assembly "Stand aside on economic matters. I am retaining control over those and I am instructing the agency what to do about the economy." It would be quite another matter to issue those directives to the Assembly itself and then to be answerable to this Parliament for the way in which that Assembly of elected representatives carried out those instructions.
The conflict that would arise in those circumstances would be considerable. I can think of few better ways of creating conflict than for one elected Assembly to give directions in that way to another Assembly. That would be a potentially explosive situation.
In setting up these agencies, the Government again and again gave their reasons for having separate agencies. They describe their role in detail as the administration of an overall economic strategy. They gave a whole series of specific pledges to Parliament about the way in which control was to be exercised by the Secretary of State and, through him, by this Parliament. All that is now apparently to be thrown aside. The agencies

could now be taken over and operated by the Assembly without any reference to Parliament at all.
I believe that that is a wholly unacceptable position. We are being asked to give authority for unknown arrangements, for unspecified bodies, at an unknown time in the future. It has not been argued that it would be an advantage for any particular body. We have been treated to nothing but broad generalisations about democracy. I believe that we are being asked to write a blank cheque for chaos, uncertainty and conflict. We should reject the proposition and support the Lords in what I believe to be a thoroughly sensible amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State said that the Assembly may appoint its own members to man particular bodies at the discretion of the Assembly and that this would create a higher degree of participation by elected people.
In any elected assemblies we know that there would be an enormous temptation for elected people to say that they could man such bodies. Once there is the opportunity to do so, few of us who are elected would admit that we are not ourselves extremely well qualified to do precisely that.
I wonder if I am wrong in suggesting that it is very likely that the Welsh Assembly will select a number of its members to be, for instance, members of the Wales Tourist Board, and to take some part in the running of the Wales Tourist Board. That, I understand, is what democratisation of such bodies means, rather than being accountable in the sense that bodies are accountable to this Parliament. Are they to select, from among those elected to the Coat Exchange, members, for example, of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales?
4.45 p.m.
If not, talk of getting rid of ad hoc bodies is sheer cant. But if so, an important issue arises for all of us in this House and far wider, in Wales: is it right that elected persons should be members of bodies such as the Historic Buildings Council? I do not want to be personal about the matter, but I had better declare an interest, in so far as my wife happens to be a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland.
It is not just a question whether elected people should be members of such a council; it is a question—this is a deep issue of principle that I put to the Secretary of State—whether elected people should be involved in the kind of sensitive issues of allocating money, which is the job of the HBC and related bodies. In preparing for this debate, I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who not only has experience in the Cabinet but for many years was a member of the Council of the British Museum, whether he thought that I was exaggerating the worries about elected people being put in the position of allocating funds. My right hon. Friend took the view that it was extremely undesirable as a matter of principle.
So I put it to the Secretary of State: is it wise and proper for those who are elected to do the kind of work that, for example, the HBC does, to be involved in the sensitive and delicate issues of allocating funds to particular individuals, in the name of the State? Public people who are elected are open to challenge concerning these delicate decisions. It may be the decision of this House and its Members that it is as well for people who allocate money to individuals to be elected as to be non-elected. All I am saying now is that this is surely a matter for discussion and a matter that should be discussed by this House.
I ask the same question as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards): how do we know that in the Coal Exchange or in any other assembly there will be the expertise to run these committees? My fear is that even if there is not the expertise—we politicians being what we are, we do not like to admit that we are lacking in expertise and we jump at every chance, especially if the Assembly does not have much else to do—

The Minister of State, Privy Council (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman should not feel inhibited.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend says that I would not be inhibited. It would not only be I who would not be inhibited. I think that many of my colleagues would not be inhibited.

Mr. Smith: When my hon. Friend overhears other conversations, he should not think that they mean what they do not mean.

Mr. Dalyell: It is very distracting. I heard what I can only take as commentary on my speech, and I felt that I had to reply to it.

Mr. Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that he should be under no such obligation. If he did not listen, he would not be bothered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It would be better if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) kept staring at the Chair. Then he would not get into any difficulties.

Mr. Dalyell: It is very difficult in a virtually empty Chamber not to hear.
There is also the related question about new towns. I have a certain interest, because I represent half of a new town. I read and heard what the noble Labour Lord, Lord Raglan, who is the chairman of Cwmbran New Town, had to say about these issues.
Whatever our feelings on new town development corporations—mine happen to be a bit ambivalent and many of us would like to see new towns taken over at an earlier stage by a local authority—is it right and practical that people elected to an Assembly, be it in Edinburgh or in Cardiff, but let us stick particularly to the Cardiff model, should take over new town development corporations? After all, new town development corporations have relations with the rest of the community, and it is not at all certain that elected politicians to an Assembly should be those who are responsible for running new town development corporations. I know something about this matter, because I represent a new town.
I turn to another set of issues. The British system has hitherto been based upon a fusion of legislative and executive powers. I go back to the Kilbrandon Commission, which said:
The division would be an arbitrary one in that the range of powers conferred on the assemblies would depend on a political judgment of the extent of the control it was necessary to retain at the centre.
I am concerned about the relationship not only between the Assembly's nominated bodies but between Westminster Government and the Secretary of State and these bodies. Last July my right


hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council proposed the establishment of the joint councils for Scotland and Wales for consultations on matters of common concern. In these 44 days we have not heard much about these joint councils. What is happening about them? For a Welsh Assembly, this joint council institution will assume a special importance, as it will be the only chance the Assembly will have of formal representation on the policy-making bodies of central Government. I need not spell out that this will be extremely important in relation, for example, to policy on the arts.
Denied a legislative role, the Welsh Assembly will have to rely upon pressures exerted at Westminster and Whitehall in the pre-legislative stages of policy making. The powers Cardiff will enjoy are dependent not only on the provisions of the Wales Bill but also upon the way in which future legislation for Wales is framed at Westminster and the degree of discretion which Westminster thinks it is right to confer upon the Welsh Assembly.
The Welsh Assembly will not have final responsibility for or be the final authority on those matters for which it will have devolved responsibility. For example, issues of housing and education policy will have to pass through three layers of government rather than two. I do not think that that is in dispute. It seems to me that precisely the same is true for those matters dealt with by these ad hoc bodies.
This is not a recipe for the devolution of power. It is a recipe for a system of government in which it will be difficult to get much done at all. It is a recipe for confusion. Sure as fate, deprived of their chance to legislate for and shape the future of, in this case, Wales, the Assemblymen will try to get their clutches on local government in Wales and particularly on the sort of functions that are carried out at present by these experts. I prefer the term "experts" to "ad hoc bodies." The Assembly's role is largely confined at the moment to supervising the services administered by local government. When there is resistance from local government, the Assemblymen will take every opportunity to find themselves a role, because they

will need to do so, in taking over the business of the ad hoc bodies.
Because the Bill is under the guillotine, I do not want to pursue this matter, but someone from outside Wales has a right to ask whether this amounts to a pile of confusion in the government of part of this kingdom.

Sir Raymond Gower: When the Secretary of State was moving the rejection of the Lords amendment now under discussion, I do not know whether he intended to create the impression, which he certainly did create, that his speech could have been taken as a justification for setting up the Welsh Assembly as a sort of general arbiter above the nominated bodies, ensuring greater democratic control. That was the tenor of his speech. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) stated, that has nothing to do with this clause. It is not a question of the general responsibility which the Assembly may have for these nominated bodies. Here we have something quite different, which has been referred to in the last two speeches. It is to the credit of the other place that it has given us this opportunity to consider this clause, which we were not able to discuss during previous stages of the Bill.
I go further than the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). In my submission, a system whereby the Assembly could chose at some moment to usurp the functions of a body and run that organisation, as it can do under this clause, could be highly dangerous. I do not wish to be unkind, but I am thinking particularly of an Assembly which may be dominated for a time by one party, although it may be an Assembly of angelic qualities. This is a particularly dangerous situation. I need not develop my argument. It is obvious to everyon that there might be very great temptations in the future to exercise these functions by members of the majority party in an Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: The Assembly might be angelic, but is not the danger that, even if it was absolutely straightforward—as I am sure it would be—elected people, without the responsibilities of Ministers and a Ministry, would be responsible for and involved with the allocation of funds? The allocation of funds is,


heaven knows, a difficult enough matter at any time. It is precisely the main job of, for instance, the Historic Buildings Council. Elected people who have the onus of allocating funds—however angelic they may be—are opening themselves to difficulties of all kinds.

Sir R. Gower: That is precisely it. The hon. Gentleman has merely enlarged upon the point which I sought to make. We should not give such a power—the exercise of the functions of these bodies—to an Assembly. We should not risk giving such a power to an Assembly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had some of these powers before, in a different way, but he has never had in his Department the responsibility for running one of these bodies. That power has never been conferred on him under the present system. He has not been able to sack all the members of the Wales Tourist Board and exercise their powers himself. Under this clause he is not merely transferring a power, perhaps from his Department to the Assembly, but is enlarging and creating new powers which he has never before exercised.

Mr. John Morris: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely accurate. Some of the functions which have been given to some of the new bodies were directly exercised by myself before they were given to those bodies. I shall give the hon. Gentleman two examples. The derelict land schemes were directly operated. I operated them. The Welsh Office operated them. The factory building programme was also directly operated. There is nothing new in this.

Sir R. Gower: I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example of powers which he has never exercised. He has given me examples of one or two powers which he has exercised under the severe scrutiny of Parliament, to which he has had to answer every time he has answered a Question from the Dispatch Box. Now, however, he is conferring on the Assembly—in relation to a body such as the Wales Tourist Board—an utterly different power which he has never possessed. That board was not set up by his Department or by him. It was set up by a previous Government, through another Cabinet. It was not set up by a Welsh Minister. It was introduced into the

House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, when he was at the Board of Trade. He introduced a Bill which set up the present arrangements for tourism to cover the whole of Britain.
5.0 p.m.
I submit that under this reprehensible system it will be possible—I do not say whether it is probable that it will ever happen—for the Assembly, dominated by a group of men who may be of superior talents and qualities and have a great knowledge of tourism, to terminate the existence of the tourist board. In that way they could upset the arrangements that Parliament deemed necessary for interlocking tourism in the three countries in the joint British Tourist Authority. Such a move would unbalance that system and the system under which the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board is a de facto member of the British authority. He will be superseded by a time-serving Member of the Assembly. All that is objectionable because—to take tourism as an example—every Member of the Assembly will consider himself to' be an expert on the subject.

Mr. John Morris: I am attempting to follow the hon. Member's argument. One thing is abundantly clear from it, and I hope he will say it in the coming months. He does not trust the people of Wales, which presumably includes the people of his constituency. Is he arguing against the involvement of directly elected people, or is his argument on a much narrower base—I do not think it is—against the assumption of these powers? In any event, without the power to subsume these bodies, directly elected people could be appointed by the Assembly, which could appoint one of its own number on to the boards.

Sir R. Gower: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to say that I do not trust the people of Wales or the Assembly. I do trust them. I trusted the members of the several local authorities in Wales until they were found guilty of corruption. Until they are found guilty, I shall trust all the other people who follow on other bodies.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Member saying that, because a number of people in local government have committed offences and have appeared before the courts


and been found guilty—people of varying political persuasions over the years—he does not trust local government?

Sir R. Gower: No, I am saying presely the opposite. I trust them all until they do something wrong. That, however, does not make it desirable to put this sort of temptation, which was the term used by the hon. Member for West Lothian, before such a body. I do not say that these people are likely to be bad or dishonest. As the hon. Member for West Lothian said, however, it is not desirable to produce legislation which puts people in such a position.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Since this Assembly, the House of Commons, produces the Government and the Cabinet of the country, on an analogy with the hon. Member's argument is not that equally reprehensible? The Government of the country are more important than the Wales Tourist Board.

Sir R. Gower: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is making an unfair comparison. This Parliament does not appoint people to take the place of those on the British Tourist Authority. We allow these affairs to be run by experts in those matters.

Mr. Dalyell: We are talking here of what are very nearly, if not actually, offices of profit under the Crown. Take as an example the appointment of at least the chairmen and deputy-chairmen of new town commissions. They are paid appointments. If any one of us became the chairman or a deputy-chairman of a new town commission, would we not go for the Chiltern Hundreds?

Sir R. Gower: That illustrates how wrong the right hon. Member for Anglesey was. In most instances, Members of this House would be prohibited from taking such jobs by the rules which prevent us holding offices of that kind under the Crown.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) misunderstands or misinterprets me. I was refering to the circumstances in which the Assembly chose or elected its own Members to serve on such bodies. They would not be offices of profit because the appointees would already be paid as

Assemblymen. Therefore, the question would not arise.

Sir R. Gower: I think it would be as well if I quoted the Bill, which says that the Assembly may
provide for the exercise by the Assembly of all or any of the functions of that body and, if it so provides as to all those functions, for the dissolution of that body.
This, therefore, could be carried out on a very small scale, on a moderate scale or completely. One person or a few people could be appointed, or the Assembly could remove all existing members and put its own Members in their place.

Mr. Ioan Evans: According to clause 60, if there was a nominated body which was fulfilling a certain function it would be possible for that body to be dissolved and the function performed by it would, in effect, be taken over by the Assembly, which would mean that the function would then be performed by the Assembly.

Sir R. Gower: It could be done in that way or in another way. There is no prescription that it should be done in any particular way. The Bill provides that this matter could be handled as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) described, or it could be done by the installation of appointees.
I submit that this is an objectionable clause which has nothing to do with democratic control of these bodies. That is ensured in another part of the Bill. The Bill already contains arrangements for the Assembly to take the place of the Secretary of State in supervising these boards and bodies. That, however, is a fundamentally different matter.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I do not follow the point of the hon. Member's references to corruption in local government. That is always reprehensible, but is it his argument that, because a few people in local government have been found guilty of corruption, local government should not have the powers that these individuals misused?

Sir R. Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being as unfair as the Secretary of State. My remark was made in defence when the Secretary of State accused me of not trusting the people of Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman


was here when that happened and he knows that that was not a statement by me but was a response to an unfair allegation. My reply was that of course I trusted these people. I trust the people on the local authorities until these things happen.
I share the view of the hon. Member for West Lothian that we should avoid a constitution or arrangement which presents such a temptation. It is highly undesirable to have as members of these boards people who need not have the slightest knowledge of the kind of work the boards are doing. They could be experts. I do not deny that there may be some Members of the Assembly who will be highly expert in many subjects. Under this system, however, people who are not experts in the relevant matters could be appointed to boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke gave an admirable example when he referred to ancient monuments and the sort of person who could be nominated to that body.
It is highly objectionable for the Assembly to have the power to take over these bodies. I do not think it is necessary. The Assembly has all the powers it needs under the other provisions in the Bill. The Assembly can supervise, it can guide and it can criticise. If the powers which the Secretary of State now wishes to restore are left out, it will not harm the Bill or destroy its efficacy. It will not reduce the usefulness of the supervision of the Assembly over these bodies. It will merely prevent the Assembly from interfering with their detailed functions.
I do not believe that the Assembly would need to interfere with the detailed functions of these bodies. Why should it? It is not the sort of body that is designed to do that. I hope that the Secretary of State, on reflection, will feel that there is no need for this and no case for it and that he will accept in this instance the very wise amendment made by the other place.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I am also pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are having a debate on clause 60, because I think that it is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, it deals with the question of the nominated bodies. I understand that the bodies affected by the clause include

not only the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, which has been mentioned, but the area health authorities, the Central Advisory Council for Education, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, the new town development corporations, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency, the Library Advisory Council (Wales). I am not sure that that is an exhaustive list. There may well be other bodies that we are discussing under the clause.
Yesterday we were dealing with the local government review powers that were to be transferred to the Assembly. That is an important matter. We need to look at the question of local government review. Now we have to consider the nominated bodies. I support my right hon. and learned Friend's attitude to the nominated bodies. Something has to be done about them. I do not take too kindly to the charges which are always being made against the present Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State. I believe that they have done a first class job in relation to the nominated bodies.
There are sometimes accusations from Conservatives that the nominated bodies are dominated by Labour people. Similarly, Labour representatives often say that the nominated bodies are dominated by people from parties other than the Labour Party. Obviously the problem is a very difficult one, and I think that it raises a very large issue. I am not sure whether in the Scotland Bill similar powers have been transferred to the Scottish Assembly. I do not know whether this is something peculiar to the Welsh Assembly. If so, I do not know why that should be so.

Mr. John Morris: Far be it from me to comment on the Scotland Bill, but I understand the reason to be that the Scottish Assembly has the power of primary legislation.

Mr. Evans: So that, rather than doing it in a single clause, it is there necessary to bring in legislation on every one of the numerous bodies such as those we are dealing with here. I am sure that we would have passed this without discussion if it were not for the amendment which has come to us from the other place.
I want now to refer to the growth of the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations of this country, the quangos. It has caused some concern to those of us who are democrats that Governments, whatever their political complexion, should have the power of patronage enabling them to determine who should serve on those bodies. But, although we may criticise the method of appointment, I think we ought to pay tribute to the people who serve on these bodies. They are people who do not wish to stand for election in order to give public service. They are people who are asked, because of their expertise, because of their ability, and because of the contributions they make to bodies with which they associate to serve on those bodies.
I think that these people do a tremendously useful job. Heaven forbid the day when they should have to stand for election in order to get on to those bodies. I am sure that I carry the House with me in saying that. Let me take as an example the Arts Council. I should like, of course, to have on that body Labour people who are interested in the arts and who can make a real contribution. But, irrespective of party, I believe that if there are people who have a contribution to make in advancing the cause of the arts, they should, even if they have no time for party politics, be brought in to serve.
5.15 p.m.
The problem now is that we have a massive system of patronage, with Ministers making nominations to these bodies. We know that there is dissatisfaction from the public, but we must often take it with a pinch of salt, because in public life there are always people who think that they can do a job better than the people who are already doing it. That sort of thing is in the very nature of public life. But we have to consider how we can tackle effectively the problem of the nominated bodies. My right hon. and learned Friend asked why we cannot have an extension of democracy. Why cannot we have appointments made not by the Secretary of State or by any other Ministers but by directly elected people?
Those who feel that an Assembly of the sort that is proposed in the Bill is not essential for the solution of these

problems should, I believe, come up with some positive suggestions. We do not, of course, know what the people of Wales will decide in the referendum. I believe that there has been no greater act of democracy than the provision for a referendum so that the people may decide for themselves. The proposals for devolution having been made, the people are to be asked to consider the merits and the demerits of them, and to consider the benefits and the disadvantages. In the end the people of Wales will decide. But suppose that the people of Wales decide that they do not want the Assembly, having heard during the referendum campaign not only about the benefits but also about the many disadvantages. If they decide against the devolution proposals, we shall still have the problem of deciding what to do, for example, about reviewing local government, and other matters.
In Wales there are 37 district councils, there are eight counties, and there are 36 Members of Parliament. In addition we shall have, in the not too distant future, four Members representing the Principality in the European Parliament. Why not bring together, then, a council of elected representatives? Let the 37 district councils each elect one representative to the council. After all, the great thing about the 37 districts is that they cover geographically every part of Wales, so that every part of Wales would be represented on the council.
Some district councils might decide to send the mayor. Some might decide to send the leader of the council, but in any event there would be 37 representatives from the district councils in Wales. Similarly, there would be representatives from the eight counties in Wales. As the counties cover a larger geographical area, let us say that each county could elect three representatives to serve on the council. That would mean having 24 representatives from the counties. There would be 36 Members of Parliament representing Wales, and the four new Members representing Wales in Europe. There would be 36 Members of Parliament, but with no direct say. We may be asked on occasions to suggest certain names—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Where will the hon. Gentleman send the elected representatives? Is what he proposes to be in place of the Assembly?

Mr. Evans: What I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there is an argument for the Assembly to deal with the nominated bodies, and that we have a problem to which we must address ourselves. The clause suggests that it be dealt with in a certain way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make my point abundantly clear. If what the hon. Gentleman proposes is to be an alternative to the proposed Assembly, it is absolutely out of order. That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. Evans: If we accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point that directly elected people should serve on the nominated bodies, we can have a directly elected group of people to deal with that problem, and they can be the people I have already defined. The difference is that we should not have an Assembly involving £3 million annually in salaries and an additional £9½ million in salaries for civil servants. The body could be a parliamentary body of some sort, but if it consisted of existing elected representatives it would be just as democratically representative as any body that could be conceived. In my opinion, it would be more representative, because instead of being elected every four or five years the membership would be changing annually. There would be district council elections one year, county council elections another year, and parliamentary elections another year. We should therefore have a directly elected body, which would be serviced by the Welsh Office as it is now. That is how we can deal with this question of nominated bodies.
We do not have to have an Assembly to have a local government review. Similarly, we can deal with this matter more democratically by having directly elected representatives involved in determining who serves on nominated bodies. That need is not in itself an argument for creating an Assembly.
Subsection (1) says:
the Assembly may by order made by statutory instrument provide for the exercise by the Assembly of all or any of the functions of that body and, if it so provides as to all those functions, for the dissolution of that body.
I supported the Government all the way in the creation of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the Land Authority for

Wales. But what is to be the future of those bodies? Are we to presume that the Assembly would, as apparently stated in the clause, have the powers to dissolve the Welsh Development Agency after we created it?
The Welsh Development Agency has done a first class job. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, it has taken over duties of the direct land unit once performed by the Secretary of State. It also deals with the promotion and bringing in of industry to Wales.
We talk about consultations with such bodies. We all know that "consultation" is a vague word and that there are differing forms of consultation. It is not quite the same as negotiation. Presumably, there will not be negotiations with the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the other bodies. Am I to understand that the Assembly would assume the functions of a nominated body and have the powers to dissolve it? That would be a major step, going much further than I visualised. I believe that those people who were appointed to the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales and the Development Board for Rural Wales did not think that when an Assembly was created they would be responsible to it instead of to the Secretary of State or this Parliament.
If the bodies in question have to go to the Assembly, presumably their financing will come through the block grant to the Assembly. We do not yet know the terms of that block grant. If it is to be one which is not as big as we on the Labour Benches would like, the numerous bodies then under the Welsh Assembly will be competing with the demands of existing local authorities in Wales. One can visualise the battle to determine where that money should be allocated.
It is far better that the Welsh Development Agency should be answerable to this House, just as the National Enterprise Board is. It would be far better for the Welsh Development Agency to, continue as it started, because it has started well. It is in the interests of the economy and development of the industry of Wales that that body should be connected with this. House and that the allocation of its funds be made from this House. It is far better for it to retain


a close connection with the Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. John Morris: I have been following my hon. Friend's arguments, so far as it went, regarding the subsuming of the Welsh Development Agency or any other body. That is what we are discussing. The question of the transfer of the WDA, the question of the block grant, was resolved by this House in our debate last night. That is not the issue this afternoon. Whether the House accepts my advice this afternoon about subsuming, that is a narrower matter that we are now discussing. The question of transfer was decided yesterday.

Mr. Evans: I am saying that the one is related to the other, and that it does arise in this discussion. We must have regard to whether it will be in the interests of Wales for the WDA to be subsumed if it means a restriction of its financial allocation in the future. I am still not aware how the financial allocation to the Assembly is to be determined. We still do not have the answer to that question. Here we are, rushing a Bill through the House and going through all the stages—

Mr. John Smith: Rushing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) knows full well that we are not discussing that matter. May we return to what the Lords amendment says?

Mr. Evans: We are coming to the last stages of consideration of the Bill, and we still do not have the answer—

Mr. John Smith: We have been rushing all year.

Mr. Evans: Clause 60 was not discussed to any great extent until we received the Lords amendments. That is an example of political rushing.
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we must make the nominated bodies more democratically accountable. But he need not feel ashamed about the appointment of the people serving on the bodies concerned. They are doing a first class job for Wales and we do not need to talk about democratising that element, saying

that those who are already serving are doing a job which is not in the best interests of Wales.
I shall return to this matter, perhaps not in the House but elsewhere. I say to the people of Wales "If you want to make your nominated bodies more democratic, by all means agree with both my right hon. and learned Friend and me, because we are agreed on this matter. But the question of the Assembly is irrelevant to that important issue."

ROYAL ASSENT

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978
2. National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978
3. Interpretation Act 1978
4. Theft Act 1978
5. Representation of the People Act 1978
6. State Immunity Act 1978
7. Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1978
8. Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978
9. House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978
10. Protection of Children Act 1978
11. Consumer Safety Act 1978
12. Local Government Act 1978
13. Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978
14. Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act 1978
15. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1978
16. Kendal Market Act 1978
17. King's College London Act 1978
18. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978
19. British Transport Docks Act 1978

WALES BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to hear the full exposition by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) of his alternative to the Welsh Assembly. From what I heard of it, it sounded to me a great deal more attractive, much cheaper and no less democratic than the model proposed to us by the Secretary of State.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Development Agency has made a very good start. I freely acknowledge that my fears have not been fulfilled, and that my best hopes have been more than fulfilled, by the way in which it operates. Although in theory it would be desirable to provide for more effective democratic control over its operations—I shall argue to that effect—I have a nasty feeling that it would be much better to leave well alone and let it get on as it is getting on.
The Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) of not trusting the people of Wales. I know few more trustful chaps than my hon. Friend. I think that that trust is reciprocated by his constituents, who regularly re-elect him with increased majorities. There are a large number of people, certainly in my part of North Wales, who distrust the Labour Party of South Wales and have some reason to do so. It is this which partly animates my attitude towards the Bill.
I think that there is common ground on both sides of the House that we should like if possible to achieve more effective democratic control over the nominated bodies which proliferate in Wales. This is undoubtedly the strongest argument for having an elected Welsh Assembly. It was also, I think, the prime concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to find an alternative pattern for devolution. It was really from that point that we started, asking "How can we devise a body which will effectively provide democratic control over these very important, very effective, but so far undemocratically controlled nominated bodies?"
If the Assembly to be set up under the Bill provided for that kind of effective democratic control, that would go some way to disarm our other suspicions about, and objections to, the Assembly. But what has clearly emerged from all the debates on the Bill is that nobody really understands how the Assembly will work, how it will do the job that it is supposed to do. So far, the Government have entirely failed to convince us that it can be made to work.
In that connection, it seems to me that any possibility that the clause, whose deletion is proposed by the Lords amendment, could be made to work is entirely demolished by subsection (4), which says:
The Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under this section.
The only remotely possible way in which the Assembly might be able to subsume the functions of these highly expert bodies and run them itself would be precisely through one of its committees, which might at least have time to acquire some expertise in the area. I see no possibility of the Assembly as a whole replacing the work done by these valuable bodies.
There emanates from the caluse a strong smell of the pork barrel. I am sure that the other place was entirely right to strike it out.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in advance destroyed what might have been my most powerful argument for the removal of the clause. I wanted to argue that all the nominated bodies pursued the objectives that they were set, with no regard whatever to political considerations. But by the appointments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made, particularly during recent months, he has gone a long way towards damaging that argument. None the less, I still consider that, despite some appointments which appear to have been made more on the grounds of political loyalty than of suitability for their posts, these bodies, particularly at official level, continue to do their job surprisingly well. It makes it very hard to believe that the kind of mechanism proposed in the clause can conceivably produce more efficient bodies or bodies of a higher integrity.
There is one question which has been tentatively asked and which I should like to put again to the right hon. and learned


Gentleman if he is to reply. What are the arrangements for the payment of Members of the Assembly who, through the mechanism of the clause, become members of the boards of the bodies whose functions they are to subsume? Whether or not there is financial advantage for members of the Assembly in taking over the bodies, there most certainly is political advantage. There is no doubt that membership of one of the boards will provide any Assemblyman who is doubtful about his possibility of re-election with an absolutely limitless opportunity for conferring political favours on districts, individuals or organisations. That seems to me the most damaging and dangerous aspect of the clause. I am sure that their Lordships were absolutely right to strike it out, and I very much hope that we shall uphold their decision.

Mr. Ian Grist: I said yesterday that it sometimes seemed that the Secretary of State in supporting the creation of the Welsh Assembly put forward the idea of a review or reform of local government as his prime argument. Certainly, his secondary argument has been that the new Assembly will somehow or other democratise the dreaded nominated bodies which he keeps going on about and of which he has himself set up a goodly number.
It has always amazed me that we in Wales have for instance, the Land Authority for Wales, operating as a nominated body over the whole of Wales, as compared with the way in which the Community Land Act operates within England. It might be thought that the system operated more closely, although certainly not more efficiently, in England than in Wales. But now the authority can be seen to be tailor-made for takeover by the Assembly—there it is, an all-Wales nominated body ripe for the picking. Perhaps that was why it was set up in that way.
The Secretary of State is saying that we must have this greater form of democracy. But there is only one way of democratising these particular bodies, and that is to move over to the type of system enjoyed in the United States. We could elect these bodies either on a wholly regional basis or on a sub-regional basis. Presumably that would be a form of

direct democracy, but to say that these bodies are democratised by replacing the Secretary of State's nomination with that of the Assembly, or that it democratises them by having them disappear entirely inside the Assembly and to be eaten up by the Assembly, is to make a mockery of the word.
It reminds me that some years ago I served in a plebiscite in the southern Cameroons. We had to tell the people of that particular colony that they were to become independent by choosing to join one of their two large neighbours. That was the way in which this little group of people became independent. They were to be lost inside the 7 million people of the Cameroun Republic or inside the 50 million people of the Republic of Nigeria. That was to make a mockery of the word "independence". Equally, it would make a mockery of the word "democracy" to say that the Assembly has taken over.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was slightly mistaken in his reading of subsection (4). Indeed, I think that the Secretary of State said that a Committee of the Assembly could take over the powers of one of the bodies of which the Assembly had taken charge. But, of course, this is a classic example of what is going on in the Bill all the time. As we said yesterday about reorganising local government, what could be more tempting for the Assembly than to get on with the job of looking at the nominated bodies to see which bits it can chop out, which ones it can absorb quickly and which bodies it can take over wholly? The Assembly will be able to do this early on, because it will not have that much to do too quickly.
Again, everyone is an expert on tourism and on the Arts Council, Gracious me, we are all experts on the Arts Council. Not so long ago we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee to prove it. We all know that it is rubbish to pay money for piles of bricks in the Tate Gallery, or whatever it may be. Therefore, I think that there will be a standing temptation for the Assemblymen to join in taking over those sorts of bodies. There is no doubt that without tax-raising and industrial powers, which will be retained by the Secretary of State, the Assemblymen will urgently want to take


over the powers of the development agency. Quite clearly, they will want to operate these directly because they have been denied other powers. They will be trying to bring employment to their areas, something which they have been denied in any other part of the Bill. This is the only path open to them to achieve that end.

Mr. Dalyell: Naturally enough, the Assemblymen will want to fill their time. But, being human, they will not want to admit that they cannot do the job.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a two-headed problem here. If the Assembly takes over a particular body, will the Committee running that body be primarily party based or will it be based on the make-up of the whole Assembly? That opens up difficult avenues, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). If it is run on an overall, non- party basis, shall we have scenes reminiscent of what we now see going on in the Merthyr district council? They are scenes which I am sure no Welsh Member needs reminding of, because they are an absolute disgrace on the face of local government. There is the in-fighting and what one might almost call "petty political brawling" which one reads about in South Wales Echo. Will that be the sort of pattern which we shall see daily in the Welsh Assembly? Many of us fear that the body politic which has got into the Merthyr borough council will ensure that that is the way in which the Assembly will operate.
5.45 p.m.
However, the final catch—this is where conflict will continue to keep coming back to this place—is contained in clause 60 (3), which provides:
An order under this section shall not be made except with the approval of the Secretary of State".
That is as mild an approval as one could write into a Bill. But what happens if the Secretary of State does not give his approval or consent? What if a Conservative Secretary of State says "No" again and again? What happens if he will not accept the local government review, the takeover of part of the Arts Council, the takeover of the Land Authority for Wales, or the taking over of certain sections of the Welsh Develop-

ment Agency? If he goes on saying "No", what then results? That is the question which has been raised throughout the debates.
As was said yesterday, there is conflict from beginning to end in both the Scotland and Wales Bills. They are not clearcut. They are constitutionally dangerous and divisive, and this is a prime example of precisely the situation we are facing.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: By the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an interesting debate.
At one point the Secretary of State said that we should not worry too much about this clause because the Assembly could effectively do away with the bodies by simply appointing its own members to them. I thought that that was a pretty scandalous suggestion. He was almost encouraging the Assembly to take this course—not to consider the expertise of members, or their knowledge and experience of the subject, but to make straight appointments to the boards for political reasons. That, of course, would be possible, but I hope that it will not happen.
The Secretary of State talked about respect for the Welsh people. I have sufficient respect for the Welsh people to believe that they will not behave in such an improper way. But, of course, powers of appointment can be abused for political reasons under the present system. This is a subject on which the Secretary of State speaks with peculiar authority and experience.
But if the Assembly proceeded down that road, there would at least be some protections left, because the bodies would still exist. They would not have been wiped out by the Assembly and they would still be subject to the statutory rules and limitations imposed on them by the Acts of Parliament which set them up. They would still be quite distinct organisations whose performance could be judged quite separately from that of the Assembly as a whole.
The Scottish example was cited at another stage in the debate. But it is clear that in Scotland, although there is no clause similar to this, the Assembly would at least have to go through the whole process of legislation and justification


before it did away with a particular body. No doubt there would be an opposition acting within that Assembly to ensure that the issue was properly and fully debated. Under the system proposed in this Bill, it can be done over a quiet cup of tea or a drink between the leader of the Executive Committee and the Secretary of State of the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) asked an interesting question to which we are entitled to an answer: Will the Members of the Assembly be entitled to the salaries enjoyed at present by members of the particular bodies?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) also made an important point when he suggested that there was a great difference between a form of democracy which simply involved taking elected Members of an Assembly, who have been elected for general political reasons, and putting them on bodies, and electing people specifically to serve on bodies so that the electorate can judge for itself an individual's suitability for a particular appointment. That would be a genuine form of democracy. Perhaps we should look at it further. One can see many advantages in making appointments in this way.
The other question to which the Secretary of State must return is, what will happen in individual cases? So far he has made no specific reference to particular bodies, except in passing. As we have a limited list of bodies operating in Wales—it does not by any means include all the nominated bodies with responsibility in Wales—perhaps the Secretary of State could clarify this matter.
These bodies are the expert bodies, concerned with the arts and so on: the bodies concerned with matters of local control of the Health Service; and those concerned with economic matters. We should have a clear indication from the Secretary of State which of these bodies he thinks should be subsumed. We shall be interested to hear his explanation and the justification for his recommendations.
For example, it will be fascinating to hear why the Historic Buildings Council will perform more valuable duties if it consists of elected Members of the Assembly sitting as a Committee of the Assem-

bly than of its present membership. It will also be fascinating to hear how community health councils will work if all they consist of is a committee sitting in Cardiff. It would cause tremendous uproar in my constituency if the community health council realised suddenly that it would be wiped off the face of the earth, and that there would be no body at local level to express local opinions about the operation of the Health Service.

Sir A. Meyer: My hon. Friend talks about these bodies sitting as a Committee of the Assembly. Surely that runs counter to clause 60(4). I thought they were not allowed to do that.

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify that. It will be even worse if the whole Assembly has to perform those functions sitting as an Assembly.
I turn to the question of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. Does the Secretary of State really think that it will be a satisfactory arrangement for a Secretary of State and a Government based in this Parliament to issue specific directives on economic matters to the Assembly and instruct it on the way in which it should carry out economic policy in Wales?

Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. This has been an interesting discussion and, until the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), a temperate one.
I noticed his remark about my having experience of abusing my powers in the course of the appointments that I have made. I expected him to develop that remark, as he has done from time to time in the past. I noticed that he said recently that he would appoint Tories. That makes it quite clear how he will operate if he is ever Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore I hope that he will not put himself on any pedestal.
I have appointed a very wide range of people since I have been Secretary of State, and I am proud of my appointments. It is very odd that the hon. Member for Pembroke and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) should pursue their vendetta against candidates whom they defeated at the previous election. It


will come amiss in both Conway and Pembroke when the electors notice how these hon. Members have pursued and attacked the candidates in this way.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Secretary of State withdraw that remark? As usual, he speaks from either ignorance or malice. I have said specifically—and it has been reported in the local Press—that I make no criticism of a personal kind against Lord Parry. I have the highest regard for him and he is a good friend of mine. I hope that he will do a good job. Therefore, the Secretary of State should withdraw his totally unfounded assertion.

Mr. Morris: Of course I will not withdraw. The hon. Member has changed his mind because he has realised the mistake he has made. A few weeks ago he said that if one's name was Gordon Parry or Ednyfed Hudson Davies one got a job. That is what the hon. Member said. Now he realises that he made a mistake in pursuing this vendetta, and he is trying to crawl back. He has been found out, and the people of Conway and Pembroke will recognise that. There is no question of my withdrawing my remarks. He has pursued a vendetta from the hustings against two individuals.
It is no good the hon. Member saying that he has every respect for these men and they are good friends of his. Those are crocodile words, and he knows it. What is more, the people of Pembroke know it as well. Perhaps he should reread the speech he made three weeks ago and see exactly what he said.
We are talking about the power of subsuming and taking over. But the attack has been not on the narrow point of the amendment but on the wider point of the Assembly having anything to do with those bodies that are being devolved. That is what the debate has been about.

This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is a very competent debater. But he put the classical case for the quango system. He was urging a perpetuation of quango land. He asked whether it was right for elected people to be members of bodies which were involved with allocating money in sensitive and delicate areas. That is the whole argument for democracy. This is the whole issue that I thought had been resolved.

I am sure that this argument was put in the 1880s when the power was transferred from quarter sessions and from poor law guardians at a later stage to local government. People elected by their own communities are fit and proper persons to take part in the allocation of money. I find it very odd that almost 100 years later my hon. Friend seeks to cast doubt on the issue whether local people can be trusted in this way. These are people elected by their own communities. They must ask for renewal of their mandates by their own local communities. When these people err and are found out, they are punished in more than one way.

I regret the remarks of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), who made it abundantly clear that he did not trust the people of Wales. He implied that he did not trust local government, and I am sure that that is a reflection of his priorities. However, on the basis that we believe that the Welsh Assembly as elected by the people of Wales can be trusted, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 233.

Division No. 296]
AYES
[6.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwoll, Sydney
Cant, R. B


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Carmichael, Nell


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carter-Jonas, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cartwright, John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Tom
Clemitson, Ivor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cohen, Stanley


Bates, All
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Coleman, Donald


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Belth, A. J.
Buchanan, Richard
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbett, Robin




Cowans, Harry
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Radice, Giles


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crfagen, Jim (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Reid, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alee (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cunnngham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cunningham, Dr J.(Whitsh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd. Frank
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kelley, Richard
Roper, John


Davies, Itot (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilfedder, James
Rowlands, Ted


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ryman, John


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David
Sever, John


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand. J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Douglas Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadle, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lvon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, John (Newton)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Filch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Flannery, Martin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MeGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


Ford, Ben
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freud, Clement
Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thompson, George


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tomney, Frank


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Ward, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morton, George
Watkinson, John


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weetch, Ken


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Henderson, Douglas
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollok)


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hucktield, Les
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson. William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pardoe, John
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John
wrigglesworth, Ian


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest



Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
M[...]eanh Dean and


Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Frank R. White.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas






NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert
body, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian
Soscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bottomley, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkins, Ft. Hon H (Spelthorne)
Biften, John
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Brittan, Leon


Saket. Kenneth
Blaker. Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.







Brooke, Hon Peter
Heaeltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Brotherton, Michael]
Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clegg, Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cockcroft, John
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Comack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Critchley, Julian
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Dalyell, Tarn
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Shepherd, Colin


Elliott, Sir William
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCusker, H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr. Jonn
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer Jim (W Dorset)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maudling Rt Hon Reginald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Coodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Trotter, Neville


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wakeham, John


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Nott, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Younger, Hon George


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John



Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (Workington)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Lords amendment no. 68 disagreed to.

Clause 66

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Lords amendment: no. 75, in page 28, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 232.

Division No. 297]
AYES
[6.15p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goola)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe
Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Atkins, Ranald (Preston N)
Gairett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
George. Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Molloy, William


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Moonman, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Hevwood)
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Sates, Alf
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Bean, R. t.
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morton, George


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bldwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hardy, Peter
Newens, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Heifer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


dray, Or Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hot[...]m, Emlyn
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Pardoe, John


Buchanan, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)
Parker, John


Campted, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfleld, Les
Perry, Ernest


Cant, P. B
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Prescott, John


Carmlchael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Reid, George


Clemltson, Ivor
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cennock)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Concanron, Rt Hon John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Corhett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, Waiter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones. Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Cunningham, G. (islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Kelley, Richard
Sever, John


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Kllfedder, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sllkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kinnock, Neil
Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamble, David
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John
Snape, Peter


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Spearing, Nigel


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sprlggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Domand, J. D.
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Doug as-Mann, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Eadle, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Famyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thompson, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, Kevin
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James




Tomney, Frank
Weish, Andrew
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Torney, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ward, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd
Yo[...], David (Bolton E)


Watkins, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Watkinson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'eh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. A, W. Stallard and


Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. James Hamilton


Wellbeloved, James






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Aitken, Jonathan
Giant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus


Alison, Michael
Gray, Ham'sh
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan, Geralnt


Atkins, Rt Hon H (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admlral


Awdry, Daniel
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Baker, Kenneth
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Batiks. Robert
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Dr Reginalc (Farermm)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Bitten, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Body, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Osbom, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Heath, Rt Ron Edward
Page, Richard (Workington)


Boyson Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Heseltlne, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Terence L.
Pattle, Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hodgson, Robin
Pink, R. Bonner


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern peter
prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brown,Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Raiph (North Norfolk)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Rnvensbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith,G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cockcroft, John
Jopling, Michael
Rifkind, Malcoim


Ceeke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rlppon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cope, John
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Corrie, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Craig, Rt Hon w. (Belfast E)
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rovie, Sir Anthony


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (pudsey)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)




Shelton, William (Streatham)



Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Shepherd, Colin


Elliott, Sir William
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Farr, John
McCusker, H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNalr-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Splcer, Michael (S Worcester)


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Nell
Stanley, John


Galbraith Hon T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald



Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt Hor Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebblt, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gorst, John
Mlscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.







Trotter, Neville
Wall, Patrick
Winterlon, Nicholas


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Walters, Dennis
Good, Rt Hon Richard


Viggers, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Hon George


Wakeham, John
Weatherill, Bernard



Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Whitney, Raymond
Sir George Young and


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 69 to 74, 76 and 77 agreed to.

Clause 70

DETERMINATION OF ISSUES AS TO ASSEMBLY'S POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an order requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless the person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.")

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We return to the jejune subject of the Attorney-General, which, amongst other reasons, no doubt accounts for the crowded attendance in the House at present.

Mr. Dalyell: The quality are here, Sam, if not the quantity.

The Attorney-General: I entirely accept that from my hon. Friend—hostile tribes or not.
It might be as well if I reminded the House shortly of the history of the discussions that there have been on what is now clause 70, previously clause 72, which we discussed earlier. When it came before the House, two amendments were moved by Opposition speakers, and between them they contained three essential parts. First of all, there was an amendment which sought to clarify and expand the subject matter of clause 70. Secondly, there was, as part of the second amendment, a proposal to extend the powers to include individuals as well as the Attorney-General. Thirdly, there was a coercive part of the second amendment,

a power to give coercive powers both to the Attorney-General and to individuals.
In the course of my reply to the debate —on re-reading it, it appears to have been for the most part generally welcome —I accepted the spirit of the first of those three propositions, and that has just been given effect to by the House, in that the Government put down an amendment in another place and have now agreed to it here, that being Lords amendment no. 77. That amendment enables the Attorney-General to bring proceedings for a declaration as to whether a power or duty resides in the Assembly, whether it is acting intra vires and whether it was failed to discharge a duty placed upon it. Accordingly the clause, as amended, should enable myself or my successors to take proceedings in every conceivable case where there is a question mark over what the Assembly is or is not doing. If it is failing to discharge a duty, this could be established.
6.30 p.m.
The second proposal sought to give a right to an individual similar to that given to the Attorney-General. My reply to that proposal was that in due course the individual would be given the same rights against the Assembly as he has against the Crown by virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act and that this would be carried into effect by an order under a subsequent clause of the Bill which could be made when the Bill became law.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) whether I could provide a draft of the proposed order. I said that I would do my best but that it did not lie with me. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to provide it in the time available. It is a somewhat complex matter, but there is plenty of time because before we reach the stage when such an order will be necessary the Bill must pass into law and a referendum will be held. The necessity for such an order will depend on the result of that referendum. There is ample time between now and when it will be necessary for a study to be made of this matter.
The intention is that the Assembly will be placed in substantially the same position as regards the Crown Proceedings Act as is a Minister of the Crown. The basis of that has always been that the Assembly is, in essence, an emanation of the Crown. That is the basis on which our discussions of the clause have proceeded.

Mr. Leo Abse: Do I understand from what the Attorney-General has said that he is asking the House to accept the passage of the Bill in this form, leaving no right available to the individual in Wales to challenge the massive bureaucracy that is being created? Is this important matter to be at large and entirely dependent on what circumstances may or may not arise in future?
Is it the case that, despite all the undertakings that have been given, an oppressive Assembly will be able to act against an individual in Wales and he will not be able to challenge the matter unless some change, which the Attorney-General cannot guarantee, comes into existence, when the Attorney-General hopes that some action will be available to the individual under the Crown Proceedings Act?

The Attorney-General: That was a rather long way of asking me whether the Bill contains amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act to give effect to what I have said will be done by order. It does not. If it did, it would not be necessary for an order to be made in due course. The Bill contains provisions for orders to be made which are consequential upon the carrying into law of the Bill, and it is the Government's intention that, when the Bill becomes law, that necessary order—and, no doubt, many other necessary orders—will be made. The effect will be to provide the individual with those rights. I have no doubt that this Government or any other Government would give effect to that undertaking.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I assume that any amendment of the Crown Proceedings Act would be made under clause 78(2). Does the Bill have to become an Act before the Minister of the Crown can make such an order?

The Attorney-General: That must undoubtedly be so. The provisions of that subsection enable an order to be

made for the amendment of an Act where it appears to the Minister concerned to be necessary or expedient in consequence of this Act. It must be an Act before that arises.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is therefore inevitable that there will be a period after the Act has been passed when the individual in Wales will not have remedies under the Crown Proceedings Act should anything happen.

The Attorney-General: There will be an interval, in any event, during which the referendum takes place. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making could not cause any harm to an individual, because the Assembly will not be in being or capable of doing anything that could prompt an individual to wish to bring proceedings before such an order will have been made.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby): Once a commencement order is passed, questions of the existence of the Assembly and actions against it arise. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least prepared to give an undertaking that, at the same time as the first commencement order is laid before the House, the Minister will make the order under clause 78(2), extending the Crown Proceedings Act to the Assembly? If the Attorney-General can give an undertaking that the order will be laid no later than when the first commencement order is put before the House, that will assist us to some extent.

The Attorney-General: The question having been put to me only now, it is not possible to give such an undertaking, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand. However, I take note of the point and I shall see whether such an undertaking can be given, both as a matter of law and as a matter of what is practicable. I shall do my best to provide the hon. and learned Gentleman with a reply during this debate. If I cannot do that, I will certainly do so in due course.

Mr. Brittan: It might be too late.

The Attorney-General: I hope that it will not be too late. I hope that the House understands that the important question is whether or not these rights are available when the Assembly has


done something which might harm or prejudice an individual. It is only then that the need will have arisen.
The third and controversial part of the amendment moved in this place was resisted by the Government then and was not pursued then by the Opposition, although they said that they might wish to come back to it. In another place it was duly returned to twice, and it appears in the form of Lords amendment no. 78. That amendment seeks, first, to give an individual the right to which I have referred and, second, to provide the coercive power which I was not prepared to accept on Report and which the Opposition did not then pursue.
Although I do not want to take unnecessary technical points, the Lords amendment is in any event defective because it substantially duplicates amendment no. 77, which we have already passed. The power given to the individual is unnecessary, because in due course the individual will have the powers provided by the Crown Proceedings Act, and it is on the coercive part that the argument no doubt will primarily turn.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments I put before. I hope that I can deal shortly with this provision. Apart from anything else, I should like to know what new arguments there are for this amendment beyond those advanced here and in another place. I have been unable to find any substantial difference between what was said in both places.
The essential element is the question whether the Bill should make a fundamental change to our system of administrative law—it would be fundamental—to enable either the Attorney-General or an individual to obtain not merely a declaratory judgment as to the vires or the lawfulness of any action or inaction by the Assembly but also a coercive judgment against an emanation of the Crown.
That is perfectly normal in the case of a local authority or some other subordinate authority, but it has never been the position in the case of an emanation of the Crown. So far as the power of the Attorney-General is concerned, it could not be or ever have been, because it would involve one emanation of the Crown obtaining an order from another emanation of the Crown against a third

emanation of the Crown. That is a constitutional principle which has never been adopted in this country or in relation to the comparable Assembly in Northern Ireland or in the dominions.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Abse: I am trying to get Wales to understand what is behind these careful legal arguments. First, I understand, the individual in the Assembly has no right to bring proceedings until an undertaking comes about which is not yet fulfilled. Second, I now learn, as Wales will learn, that if there came into existence a spirited, defiant and politically motivated Assembly—

Mr. Dalyell: As it would be.

Mr. Abse: As it would be, Wales being Wales. If my right hon. and learned Friend takes a proceeding into the court, is he explaining to the people of Wales that the court can make a declaration and that there is no power left to enforce that decision on the Assembly? Is this not another example of the recipe for undoubted conflict which must arise once we have this absurd dissemination of the powers within the Crown?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend points precisely to the position which exists today in relation to a remedy against a Minister of the Crown. A declaratory remedy is obtainable, but there is no power in the court to make a coercive judgment. What always happens in practice is that, the court having pronounced on the position in relation to vires or the law, the Government of the day carry that out.
What my hon. Friend seems to be suggesting is that one must and should assume that the Crown, through its emanation as the Welsh Assembly, would be adopting a lower standard in these matters than would a Minister of the Crown at Westminster. That is something that I am certainly not prepared to accept. If one reached that sort of stage—I do not believe that we shall—the power still resides in Westminster, if necessary, to deal with the matter. The ultimate sovereignty continues to reside at Westminster.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not all too likely in those circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)


said, that with a lively, headstrong Assembly this is exactly the position that we would reach?

The Attorney-General: If a lively, headstrong Assembly acted outside its powers or failed to act according to its powers, it would be possible for me or my successor under the provisions of this clause to have determined by the court that the Assembly had done that or not done it, depending on the circumstances, contrary to the law.
My hon. Friend is putting to me that, given a judgment of the court so declaring that the Assembly had been and was in breach of its statutory duty, one must suppose that it would be necessary, in order to cause it then to obey the law, to give to the court some coercive function. If the Assembly that my hon. Friend contemplates is so headstrong and so wilful that in those circumstances it refuses to obey the law when the law has been declared, I wonder what additional force one would be likely to get by giving coercive powers to the court.
The reality of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is presupposing a situation which none of us—with the possible exception of my hon. Friend, who looks at these matters in the context of hostile tribes, as he told us on another occasion —believes is likely to happen. In the highly unlikely event of its happening, this House has the ultimate sovereignty and can deal with the matter then.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but when the Assembly begins to operate, an order having been made and before an order has been made amending the 1947 Act so as to incorporate the Assembly, what would happen if an official of the Assembly, acting within his powers, behaved negligently and injured an individual? Would that individual have rights against the official only as an individual and not against the Assembly?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his own experience that the answer must be that it all depends. If he is talking about driving a motor car and a motor car accident, of course there would be an action against him as an individual. If he is performing an entirely different

function, it may be that there would be no possible procedeings against him and that proceedings would lie, given the amendment to the Crown Proceedings Act, on behalf of the individual against the Assembly.
That gives me an opportuntly to give an answer to the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby. I can give an undertaking to this extent. An order applying the Crown Proceedings Act can be made to have effect from the time when the Assembly has effectively come into existence—that is to say, immediately after the first elections. To deal with the difficulty that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) put to me, it is not necessary that it should come into effect any earlier than that. I can give that undertaking.

Mr. Brittan: I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. I think he said that an order can be made. Is the undertaking that it will be made at the time specified?

The Attorney-General: I am not sure to whom the hon. and learned Member should be putting that question.

Mr. Brittan: I shall rephrase it. Is the undertaking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends it to be made?

The Attorney-General: I think that I can give that undertaking. If I am going too far in undertaking that, given the appropriate circumstances, when that time comes the order will be made at that stage, I shall be corrected very quickly and I shall correct myself. But that is as I understand the position. Who knows? It may be that the question ought to be addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby himself, but that is a matter that we shall see in due course. That is the position at law.
There are those who take the view from a constitutional point of view that there should be coercive powers against Ministers of the Crown and other emanations of the Crown. But, if that be so, the right time and place to consider that and to provide them is not as an offshoot of clause 70 of the Wales Bill as it now is. Clearly, it is necessary that that should be considered as a matter of broad general principle rather than in these circumstances.

Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend tries to relate this question to a broad principle. We are dealing with a novel situation which, in the opinion of many people, has the seeds of conflict. My right hon. and learned Friend has made an elliptical reference to the possibility of there being another Government. If this wretched Assembly comes into existence, I am certain that the people of Wales will not have a Conservative Assembly. The very circumstances which are now being created is a case where it is likely that conflict will arise. It is no use my right hon. and learned Friend retreating to the general position, saying in this rather deprecating manner that in this clause of a small Wales Bill we cannot deal with this general principle. The fact is that this is a Bill affecting the Principality which is likely to precipitate conflict. My right hon. and learned Friend should direct his attention now to what will happen if the conflict arises between the Assembly and this House.

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had answered that question very fully. it has been put to me already. However, my hon. Friend must allow me to make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Brittan: Too long.

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely. However, time has been taken by long interventions.

Mr. Abse: On important points.

The Attorney-General: I have dealt with the constitutional side, and I now deal with what, in essence, is the effect of the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), which is the political side.
The political side of the matter is that we are establishing a body intended to have powers which are the powers of the Executive—the powers of Ministers of the Crown—operating in that sense as a Minister of the Crown. From a political point of view, in my opinion and that of the Government, the very worst way in which we could start this body off on its career and the way most likely to cause it to adopt the headstrong path to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian referred is to treat it as though it were not an emanation of the Crown

but a mere subordinate local authority. That would be the precise effect of accepting this Lords amendment.
That is the reality of the political side. Both for political and sound constitutional reason, I invite the House to reject the Lords amendment.

7 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: As so often in the debates on these devolution Bills, we start off thinking that we are debating a technical, legal matter, and everyone except the lawyers and a handful of enthusiasts, or enthusiastic opponents, deserts the Chamber. Within five minutes of the debate starting, however, it becomes crystal clear that we are debating fundamental constitutional questions.
It would be difficult to think of anything more fundamental than the right of the individual to sue the Welsh Assembly if he has, or ought to have, a cause of action against it because it has exceeded or abused its power. It would be difficult to think of anything more fundamental as a constitutional question than the relationships between this Government—in the context of the amendment, as represented by the AttorneyGeneral—and the Welsh Assembly.
Here we are, having embarked on these technicalities, instantly unveiling these fundamental points and attempting to deal with them in an hour's debate under the guillotine. Our whole case on this amendment is not essentially a technical one. What we are saying is that the Government have created a creature in the Welsh Assembly but are blinding themselves to the fundamental constitutional consequences of having done so and are refusing to recognise the implications by insisting on maintaining legal and constitutional arrangements which bear no relationship to the change in the constitutional structure created by the erection of an Assembly with powers of this kind.
If we look at the two limbs of the argument, the same fundamental points arise. First, there is the question of the individual having the right to sue the Assembly. When we last debated this, we were told that it was one of the two out of the three points on which the Government accepted the spirit of the argument. It was said that it was right that an individual who had been aggrieved


should have the opportunity to challenge the Assembly. Then, rather in the way that a rabbit is produced out of a hat, we were told that this would not be done by amending the Bill now. Instead, it would be done under clause 78 (2), by amending the Crown Proceedings Act. At that stage I asked whether it would be possible to see a draft of such an amendment. No draft was immediately available, and now, weeks if not months later, there is still no draft.
I do not blame the Attorney-General or the draftsmen for that. If it takes as long as that, we are plainly talking about something which could not be described as straightforward and simple. Plainly, the drafting that will be needed will be complex because there are a number of possibilities. What that means is that we have to consider the procedure that occurs when that draft is produced. The procedure under clause 78 (2) is that the Minister of the Crown makes the order, which is then a statutory instrument subject merely to annulment.
The realities and probabilities of the situation are that, if this procedure goes ahead, the Minister will produce his draft and it will never be debated in the House. Yet this is a matter of sufficient complexity to have made it impossible for the Attorney-General to produce the draft on the last occasion when we debated the matter and impossible for him to produce it now. Finally, when the orange is squeezed and the Attorney-General is pressed hard, we emerge with an undertaking that his intention—if he is still in his present position, and he plainly did not think that that was likely—is that he will produce a draft at such time that it will take effect not later than when the Assembly comes into existence.
If the Government are in good faith, if they are quite content that the individual should have the right to challenge the Welsh Assembly, where that Assembly has exceeded its powers, why do we have to go through all this palaver? Why do we need an arrangement of that kind whereby the draft is eventually produced and the order is made when there is a perfectly good Lords amendment dealing with the point now? All the anxieties about the time and the delay could be set at rest.
When the Attorney-General said that the amendment was defective, I thought

that at last we were to be shown some fundamental flaw which would prove that the individual would not get the right that I seek on his behalf. That is not what the Attorney-General said. All that he said about the amendment being defective was that it duplicated amendment no. 77. He did not say that it was inconsistent with it, or that it did not confer the right that it purported to confer. He made no criticism of it other than as a measure of duplication. That seems to be a poor basis for rejecting the amendment.
What the Attorney-General has signally failed to do is to explain why we have to wait for the Crown Proceedings Act to be amended rather than have the amendment here and now by way of the Lords amendment. If things were handled in that way, the provision could have effect at once and all the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) could immediately be set at rest. We have had no explanation why the cumbersome method, which apparently is to take months, is preferable to the simple method which the Lords have enacted.
Faced with the advocacy by the right hon. and learned Gentleman of so complex and protracted a route instead of the route which the Lords have followed, it is difficult for this House not to be somewhat suspicious about the Government's intentions.

The Attorney-General: Will the hon. and learned Member explain what he means by that? What precisely is he suspicious about—that the Government have no intention of providing individuals with any remedy?

Mr. Brittan: I am suspicious of the ability of the Government to produce in good time the order which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said it is the Government's intention to produce. That is what I am suspicious of, and it seems that I have every reason to be suspicious. No explanation has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, either in his speech on the last occasion or in his speech today. He certainly took his time over his speech today considering that we are operating under a guillotine. Within that speech there was no attempt


to explain why it is that the Lords amendment, which achieves the aim of giving the individual a right of action against the Assembly, could not be accepted and why it was necessary to have this alternative and more cumbersome route. That is something which is of great importance.
Those of us who are concerned to give the individual that right of action feel that in the absence of some adequate explanation the Lords amendment ought to stay in the Bill. No criticism has been made of the Lords amendment as failing to achieve the object which it is designed to achieve.
I turn to the other side of the argument, the question of coercion. It is here —in what is fundamentally a more important aspect of the matter—that the Attorney-General, with great respect, seems to fail to recognise the tremendous change that the Wales Bill has already introduced into the relationship between one part of the Crown, one emanation of the Crown as he puts it, and another. I am surprised that he fails to recognise the change, because that change is reflected in the Bill and in one of the amendments. The whole case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Assembly is an emanation of the Crown, is therefore totally without precedent and, therefore, this is not an appropriate occasion to embark upon the road of allowing one emanation of the Crown to obtain from the courts coercive relief against another emanation of the Crown. One cannot have that kind of arrangement.
Let us first take account of the fact that this language about emanations of the Crown is constitutional gobbledegook. It totally obscures the reality of the situation, which is that we shall have two separate Governments, often, if not always, of different political complexions, who are elected on a different basis and who have nothing in common, and there is not the slightest reason to believe that they will wish to co-operate or have any kind of agreement. Therefore to talk about them both as being emanations of the Crown and its being a constitutional novelty for one to be allowed to institute action in the independent courts against another is to ignore the realities of the situation.
We are creating something that is new. To fail to accept that it is new and to talk about it as though it were just another department—say, a Post Office —or whether one makes a nationalised industry a Department of State or creates a public body and the extent to which one makes it independent, is to bring in the sort of air of consideration that the Attorney-General has imparted to this debate, when what we are creating is a new, elected Assembly seeking and claiming all the legitimacy that derives from the fact of its election. To give the Assembly substantial powers and then to talk about both bodies as being emanations of the Crown is to descend to the level of absurdity.
Before the Attorney-General intervenes—and I should welcome the opportunity of giving way to him—let me point out that that has already been recognised by the Government. One of the points of great principle is that one Minister of the Crown cannot take action against another Minister of the Crown. A Minister of the Crown is a member of the same Government as the other Minister, and it is inconceivable that they should be locked in legal battle one against the other. That is something that will be determined at the highest levels of Government within the Cabinet.

Mr. Dalyell: And by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brittan: Yes.

Mr. Abse: Collective responsibility.

Mr. Brittan: That is right, and one cannot have one part of the Government suing another part of the Government. The doctrine of collective responsibility applies. They are emanations of the Crown jointly.
If one looks at Lords amendment no. 77 to clause 70, one finds that the Government support the alteration of the clause so that it reads:
Without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section, the Attorney General may institute against the Assembly proceedings of the kind specified in subsection (2) below notwithstanding that each of them acts on behalf of the Crown.
That gives the game away totally and entirely, because it shows—and if one reads the debate in another place one sees that it was conceded expressly and


explicitly—that, because the normal practice is that one emanation of the Crown does not sue another, it is necessary not simply to make a statutory exception and say that the Attorney-General may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings for the determination of any question, but to elaborate, exculpate and explain that by adding within the Government's own amendment:
notwithstanding that each of them acts on behalf of the Crown.
The pass is sold in those words.
If the Attorney-General is saying that one Minister who is an emanation of the Crown can sue another body which is an emanation of the Crown, although both purport to act on behalf of the Crown, I must tell him that that is inconsistent with his position on this amendment, where he says that it is inconceivable to make a constitutional departure by granting the courts the right to take action against another emanation of the Crown, yet a Minister is allowed to sue that body. Either one says that they really are emanations of the Crown, in which case one is totally blinding oneself to the reality of the situation, or one accepts that a new constitutional order has been created. Once that is said, the Attorney-General has to be allowed to take action against the Assembly notwithstanding that each of them acts on behalf of the Crown.
Once we allow action of that kind, we cannot say that all we can allow the court to grant is a declaration, because a court cannot grant more than a declaration against an emanation of the Crown, and we accept that every emanation of the Crown obeys the court and a declaration is sufficient to do the trick.
7.15 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman produced as his final line "What is the point in any event of giving coercive powers against the Assembly, because surely if it will not obey a declaration it will not obey any kind of coercive action?" I disagree totally, because I believe that what one puts in the statute —we are creating something new—affects from the beginning the whole psychology and understanding of these matters. If it is made clear from the outset that the Assembly is a body that has to obey the

law as administered and set up by the courts of this land, called into existence by the Attorney-General if necessary, it is much more likely that in the event of conflict all but the genuine revolutionary will say "We must obey the law."
That is what will happen, as compared with a situation whereby the Act that sets up the Assembly itself concedes that no more than a declaration can be given. That is an open invitation to the Assembly to ignore the law if the political momentum that is behind the act of the Assembly that has led to its being brought before the court is sufficiently strong. Therefore, even on the practical grounds it seems to me that the amendment ought to be accepted.
I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Lords in the amendment, because there is no reason why there should be a delay in giving the individual the right to sue the Assembly in the proper circumstances, and above all because there is no reason why a constitutional myth should be allowed to continue to exist when it has already been exploded by the Government's own amendment. We should not hide under these nonsenses about emanations of the Crown when the reality of the situation is that we are setting up a separate Government in Wales. If we wish to control it, regulate it or limit it in any way, we must accept the fact, not blind ourselves to it and not pretend that we are doing nothing of any consequence in this legislation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was quite right in saying that the fundamental absurdity of what we are attempting to do in the Bill in principle is revealed by the debate on this amendment. We started from a decision to set up two national Assemblies in the United Kingdom. Because the people to be represented were nations in their own right they were to have directly representative Assemblies. By examination of the consequences of that in Scotland, where the Assembly was to be given legislative powers, we made the discovery that it is impossible to divide the legislative power of the Crown inside a unitary State.
That is not, however, the path that we have trod in dealing with Wales. Here it


was considered too grandiose, at any rate at first, to endow the national Assembly of Wales with legislative power, so the Government said "Let us just give it executive power". "What?" ran the response, "Is it to be local government?" If it were to be local government for Wales we should have no problems. We should know exactly where we were. It would be like any other local authority, a statutory corporation, and it would be dealt with, in default, where necessary, upon political responsibility by the Crown as the Secretary of State acting ultimately under the sanction of this House.
However, that would not do. One could not set up a directly elected Assembly for Wales because Wales is a nation and then say "Oh, but this is only local government. This is only a regional council." It had to be something different. So, what was there? It was to be given executive powers, but the executive powers of the Crown, or a share in them. The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and said "Look, I am transferring to a directly elected Assembly my own executive powers", that was to say, part of the executive powers of the Crown. So we created this monstrosity, a national Assembly endowed with its authority by the fact of election by the people, exercising the powers or part of the powers of the unitary Crown of the United Kingdom.
Here we run into the consequences of that absurd and contradictory act by a sort of application of the question quis custodiet? The Government have taken the impossible middle course. They have said "We will allow the courts, at the motion of another officer or emanation of the Crown, to determine whether the Assembly has failed to discharge a duty imposed upon it". But then they have shrunk back from the ultimate visible absurdity of giving the court the power of coercion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State asked himself how this would be played through in the case of a Minister of the Crown of the United Kingdom who was the subject of a declaration of this kind. He did not answer that question properly, but I shall answer it for him. One of two things would happen. Either the Minister would

persist and this House would support him and, if necessary, change the law. Or he would persist and this House would not support him and the Administration would fall.
This House, like all power in this country of any kind, is an emanation of the Crown. We sit here because we were sent for by Her Majesty, by her writ, and her writ was returned. But it is the Crown in its legislative aspect which here confronts the Crown in its executive aspect. However, here we have established not even, as in Scotland, an Assembly which confronts the Executive and which has legislative power. There are difficulties in Scotland, but they are of a different kind. Here with the Welsh Assembly we have established a national elected Assembly, and we make it an executive body. There is therefore no means or mechanism for the executive power to be controlled by the representatiws of the electorate which has constituted that body. The whole thing is a constitutional nightmare. It is impossible inherently and by definition.
So we have made a further major discovery. We had discovered that in a unitary State one cannot divide the legislative power between this House and another Assembly. Now we have discovered that one cannot share the executive power of the Crown and attempt to attribute part of it to an Assembly elected to represent part of the Kingdom. So there is a sort of beautiful consonance between the absurdity of the Scottish Bill and the absurdity of the Welsh Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: After the intellectual tour de force of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the legal tour de force by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I feel something like the man from the farmyard who has strode in here with mucky boots. But I am a little less awesome of lawyers than I once was. When one is told by Lord Scarman and Lord Wilberforce that in their legal opinion these Bills are unworkable, one's irreverence vanishes a little.
I have one question to put to the Attorney-General. I do not want to carp, but why are these drafts not ready? This is symptomatic of something that we all suspect, that these matters have not been properly thought through.
It is said that from a political point of view the worst thing of all would be to treat the Assembly not as an emanation of the Crown but as a local authority. But we are setting up in Wales, as is Scotland, a second Government. One Government can take legal action against another Government. Let my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General say whether I have the wrong end of the stick, but is it not true that one Minister in one Government can sue another Department and another Minister in another Government? Is that not something that the House of Commons should debate at some length rather than by a side wind on Lords amendments on the Wales Bill?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not wish to prevent the Attorney-General from answering the debate, and so I shall take less than a minute. Will he reply to two questions? First, what is the complication that is taking so long to provide an amendment to the 1947 Act? Second, the Assembly is described in the Bill as a body corporate—in other words, it has a legal entity apart from its members. What is it in law that makes it certain that the Assembly is an arm, in other words, an emanation of the Crown?

The Attorney-General: I want briefly to answer the points that have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and, in so doing, the point just raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas).
First comes the question of drafting. A large number of orders will require to be drafted, by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, under the clause to which I have already referred and others. They cannot all be drafted at the same time by the parliamentary draftsmen. Parliamentary counsel have to take them in accordance with the necessities of the case, and, as I have already made clear, those necessities do not arise until the Assembly is in being and until someone is subject to some form of harm or threat as a result of which he may wish to take proceedings against the Assembly.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we do not simply accept the Lords amendment dealing with individual rights. The answer, as he must know, is very simple. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide the individual with rights which are limited in a very curious way in the light of the propositions which he was putting to the House in that, for example, there is no provision for injunctive relief or matters of that kind. I pointed that out to him when I replied to the debate on Report. In the time that has elapsed, nothing has been put in. One must assume that that was intentional.

Taking the other side of the matter, there is provided within the ambit of the amendment an entirely open right which is in no way fettered in the way that the right would be fettered by virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act. Therefore, for example, it would give the individual rights which are expressly debarred to him by virtue of that Act when he is proceeding against the Crown. I have in mind in particular mandamus and other powers which are specifically provided. That is why we say that it is essential that an order should be made which puts the individual, when dealing with the Assembly and with anything that the Assembly may have done which may be at fault, in the same position as an individual when suing a Minister of the Crown.

As to coercion, the simple answer is as the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it, and that is that we wish to start, as he says, in the right way, and the right way is to give to this Assembly the status that it ought to have—

It being half-past Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 272.

Division No. 298]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Anderson, Donaid
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joe' (Heywood)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Bates, Alt


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bean, R. E


Asnley. Jack
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Beith, A. J.




Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Noble, Mike


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S
Ovenden, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Pardoe, John


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George


Buchanan, Richard
Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)
Parker, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Cant, R. B
Hughes, Itobert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)


Carmicnael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter, Ray
Hunter, Adam
Radlce, Giles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robinson, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Concannon, Rt Hon John
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


COOK. Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Cowans, Harry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crfagen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryman, John


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Sever, John


Cunnngham, G. (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Shaw, Arnold (ilford South)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whitsh)
Kltfedder, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Kllroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lambie, David
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deviee, Rt Hon Denzil
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwieh)


Daves, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee. John
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarksh


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Spearing, Nigel


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Litterick, Tom
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dougias-Mann, Bruce
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thompson, George


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devoi


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan
Tierney, Sydney


Flannery, Martin
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Tilley, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomlinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwln, T. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freud, Clement
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mitcheli, Austin (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Watkinson, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Molloy, William
Weetch, Ken


Ginsberg, David
Moonman, Eric
Weitzman, David


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Welsh, Andrew


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Graham, Ted
Morton, George
White, James (Pollok)


G'ont, John (Islington C)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Whitehead, Phillip







Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wigley, Dafydd
Wilscn, William (Coventry SE)



Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE [...]ES


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woodall, Alec
Mr, James Tina and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woof, Robert
Mrs. Ann Taylor.


Wison, Gordon (Dundee E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fry, Peter
Madel, David


Adley, Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundal)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Marten, Nell


Alison, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maude, Angus


Arnold, Tom
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon H(Spelthorne)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth
Goodlad, Alastalr
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Banks,. Robert
Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bell, Ronald
Gow, lap (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Blaker, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Morgan, Geraint


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admlral


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Brittan, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rl Hon Miss
Neave, Alrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michsel
Newton, Tony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Buck, Antony
Heseltlne, Michael
Osborn, John


Budgen, Nick
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hlggins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hodgson, Robin
Page, Richard (Workington)


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Paisley, Rev Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wlrral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cockcrott, John
Hunt, John (Ravertsbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglat
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Corn's, John
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Costaln, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'dt'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Crowdar, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jopllng, Michael
Rhodes James, R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jamas
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rlfklnd, Malcolm


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairgrleve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Loverldge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrlndle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Nell
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmlilan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
McNalr-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNalr-Wllson, p. (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)







Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis


Speed, Keith
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Spence, John
Temple-Morris, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Whitney, Raymond


Sproat, Iain
Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Stainton, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stanley, John
Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wakeham, John
Younger, Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Stokes, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.

Clause 78

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 31, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

("(3) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 267.

Division No. 299.
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cronm, John
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Cunnngham, G. (Islington S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whitsh)
Grocott, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Dalyell, Tarn
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Oavies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bates, Alt
Davis, Clinton (Hacitney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bean, R. E
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heller, Eric S.


Beitb, A. J.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hooson, Emlyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dewar, Donald
Horam, John


Bidweil, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dormand, J. D.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas Mann, Bruce
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Huckfield, Les


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Pt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynelh
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Soyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bray, Or Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hunter, Adam


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Janner, Greville


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Campbell, Ian
Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Canavan, Dennis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Nell
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones. Alec (Rhondda)


Cartwright, John
Ford, Ben
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clemirson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Judd, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Freud, Clement
Keliey, Richard


Coricannon, Fit Hon John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
KInnock, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ginsberg, David
Lambie, David




Lamborn, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lee, John
Ovenden, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Swain, Thomas


Lever, Rl Hon Harold
Palmer, Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litterick, Tom
Park, George
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loyden, Eddie
Parker, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Luard, Evan
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thompson, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Perry, Ernest
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Prescott, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


McCartney, Hugh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tierney, Sydney


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, William (Rugby)
Tilley, John


McElhone, Frank
Radice, Giles
Tinn, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomney, Frank


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roper, John
Watkinson, John


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted
Wellbeloved, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Ryman, John
Welsh, Andrew


Meacher, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wig ley, Dafydd


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Short. Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Wiiliams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morton, George
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Newens, Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Noble, Mike
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


O'Halloran, Michael
Stott, Roger
Mr. Donaid Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Sudgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Alison, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H (Spelthorne)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth. Eaat)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Fry, Pelar


Baker, Kenneth
Clegg, Walter
Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.


Banks. Robert
Cockcroft, John
Gardiner, George (Relgate)


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Corrie, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W.
Costaln, A. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Berry, Hon Anthony
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Goodhew, Victor


Bifien, John
Critchley, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Blakar, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bottomley, Peter
Drayson, Burnaby
Gray, Hamish


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grieve, Percy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dunlop, John
Griffiths, Eicion


Bradford, Rev Robert
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Brlttan, Leon
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brotherton, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fairgrleve, Russell
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Fell, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan







Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Tim


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Scotf-Hopkins, James


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heseltine, Michael
Miacampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin


Hodgson, Robin
Molyneaux, James
Shersby, Michael


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Silvester, Fred


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Sims, Roger


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint
Stalnton, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanley, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


James, David
Mudd, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Want'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jessel, Toby
Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Newton, Tony
Speed, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Splcer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Tapsell, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Knox, David
Paisley, Rev Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
Trotter, Neville


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, John


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


McCusker, H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Macfarlane, Nell
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walters, Dennis


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Warren, Kenneth


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McNair-WMson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitney, Raymond


McNalr-Wllson, P. (New Forest)
Rifklnd, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Marten, Nell
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Hon George


Mates, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Mather, Carol
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornaey)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Sir George Young.


Mawby, Ray

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 81

REFERENDUM

Lords amendment: No. 87, in page 32, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) If a resolution under section 80(4) above has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed by both

Houses, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 266.

Division No. 300)
AYES
[7. 57p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Bates, Alf
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Archar, Rt Hon Peter
Bean, R. E
Bradley, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Beith, A. J.
Bray, Or Jeremy


Ashley, Jack
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Buchanan, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bienkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Sain, Mrs Margaret
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cellaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boothroyd. Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian




Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Cant, R.B
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Carmicnael, Nell
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter, Ray
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Radice, Giles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clemltson, Ivor
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cortcannon, Rt Hon John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rooker, J. W.


Corbett, Robin
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roper, John


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crfagen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Cronln, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whitsh)
Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lee, Johi,
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penlstone)
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Gwyntor (Cavnarthen)
McGuIre, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fletcher, Tad (Darlington)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Tlerney, Sydney


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Ward, Michael


Ginsberg, David
Molloy, William
Watklns, David


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
Watkinson, John


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weetch, Ken


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Weitzman, David


Graham, Ted
Morria, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morton, George
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grlmond, Rt Hon J.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whltlock, William


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson,William (Coventry SE)


Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooson, Emlyn
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woodall, Alec


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pardee, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)
Park, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John



Huckfleld, Les
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Joseph Dean,







NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Hector


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Alison, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Arnold, Tom
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan, Geraint


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Atkinson, David(B'mouth, East)
Grieve, Percy
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Banks, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Nelson, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic(Torbay)
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Blaker, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John


Booy, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow West)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hayhoe, Barney
Paisley, Rev Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil


Bradford,Rev Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Braine,Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hodgson, Robin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward(Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, David(Wirral)
Pees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Budgen, Nick
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhodes James, R.


Butler, Adam(Bosworth)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clegg, Walte
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cockcroft, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cope, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sainsbury, Tim


Corrie, John
King, Tom(Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Craig, Rt Hon W.(Belfast E)
Knox, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Dunlop, John
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCusker, H.
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Emery, Peter
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, Iain


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David
Stanley, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mills, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Wakeham, John







Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G.(Ealing, Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Hon George


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Whitney, Raymond



Wall, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Lord James Douglas-Ham

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 88 to 91 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 79 to 81, 83 to 86 and 92 to 104 agreed to.

Schedule 2

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 46, leave out lines 15 to 19.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I shall later be inviting the House to disagree with Lords amendments nos. 191 and 192 and to accept in their place the words printed on the amendment paper.
I wish to begin this debate on the National Health Service by indicating exactly the state of the Bill since it has been subject to a number of changes both here and in another place.
As the Bill stands, the terms and conditions of service, including the pay, of all NHS staff are completely devolved. That is where the Bill now stands. But that is not the policy of the Goverment, nor is it our wish that it should remain so. It is the Government's policy that the Assembly should exercise ministerial power in respect of the administration of the NHS in Wales.
The Government believe that the Assembly should not have the final say on pay and related terms and conditions of service of NHS staff. The Government agree with the British Medical Association that remuneration and closely related matters should continue to be uniform throughout England and Wales. We believe that to be important in preserving mobility within the profession and in the interests of health care generally. It has, however, not proved to be easy to separate the powers needed for the administration of the Health Service from those concerned with remuneration.
This difficulty is particularly acute in respect of general medical practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. Their remuneration is determined by regulations made under sections 29 and 34 to 43 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
The inter relationship between pay and other matters in those regulations is close. For example, disciplinary action against a general practitioner is possible by way of withholding part of his remuneration. It is not, therefore, possible to draw a clear distinction between those matters which are concerned exclusively with remuneration and those which are not. This cannot be done in the Wales Bill by reference to existing regulations as they may change over the years. The Bill needs to be able to cope with such changes.
The Bill left this House containing a scheme designed to overcome these problems in relation to the remuneration of general medical practitioners and others similarly placed. In schedule 2 the relevant functions in the 1977 Act were devolved to the Assembly. An amendment to the 1977 Act in schedule 11 then gave the Secretary of State the power to direct the Assembly on the exercise of those functions. He could, therefore, determine the aspects of any Assembly regulations concerned essentially with remuneration and then direct the Assembly as to what the regulations should contain in this respect.
A further complication is that the principal instrument affecting remuneration is called the "Statement of fees and allowances", and this is made under the terms of the regulations rather than contained in the regulations themselves. The intention is that the Secretary of State should be able to fix fees and allowances. This was achieved by including in the Secretary of State's directing powers a power to direct the Assembly to confer functions on him.
8.15 p.m.
At the time when the Bill left this House it was thought that the remuneration of employed staff, such as hospital


doctors, did not present the same difficulties. It was later realised that the reservation of the relevant provisions—that is, paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1) of schedule 5 of the 1977 Act—could create problems for the Assembly in the administration of the NHS in Wales. It could prevent the Assembly from making regulations about the appointment of any hospital staff by the area health authorities. Consequently, amendment no. 105 devolves in schedule 2 the ministerial functions concerned as the first leg in bringing the treatment of remuneration of employed staff into line with that of general practitioners. Therefore, we hope that the House will accept amendment no. 105.
There is a further complicating factor. In Committee the Lords removed from schedule 11 the amendment to the 1977 Act which gave the Secretary of State the power to direct the Assembly. Without this amendment, the Assembly has full powers to fix remuneration of NHS staff. This is contrary to Government policy and to the views of the movers of the amendment in the other place.
Finally, if the House agrees to reject amendments nos. 191 and 192, the directing power will be restored only in respect of the provisions concerned with GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians. We have tabled an amendment which would extend the directing power to cover provisions related to all employed staff in the NHS.

Mr. Hooson: As the Minister knows, I have expressed concern about the appointment of consultants under this provision. Is the result of the Lords amendment that the Welsh Assembly could appoint consultants or arrange for their appointment without any reference to the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons for outside referees? Does the provision now proposed—namely, for the Secretary of State to make regulations—ensure that the appointment of, say, consultants at Cardiff would follow the same kind of procedure as adopted in the appointment of consultants in London?

Mr. Jones: If we accept the Bill as it stands, the Assembly would be able to vary the regulations which affect the methods of appointment of consultants.

It is that kind of protection that we seek to give by giving the Secretary of State this kind of power.
To sum up, I emphasise that this is a technical and complicated problem. I know of the great concern expressed by many hon. Members both here and in the other place on this matter. Our objective was to ensure that pay and closely related terms of service in the NHS should be reserved, but the Bill at present does the opposite. It now gives complete and outright devolution. We believe that, using the amendments passed in another place, we should accept the principle of devolution, but we must ensure that we give the Secretary of State power to direct. We believe that we have now done that in such a way as to ensure that negotiations and determination of pay and related terms of service affecting standards remain in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. That will ensure uniformity between members of the profession in England and Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the Minister consider that giving the power of direction to the Secretary of State is the best and most effective way of doing that? Is there no better way than that?

Mr. Jones: It is certainly one way. I should hesitate to say whether no other way could be found. Only a foolish man would suggest that there was only one way forward. It is a way that devolves sufficient functions to the Assembly to ensure that it can manage the National Health Service and at the same time ensures that, by the Government exercising their powers of direction, we maintain uniform standards throughout England and Wales. For that reason, I hope that the House will accept the amendment no. 105 but will reject the later amendments.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Minister is absolutely right. This is indeed a very complex situation. As the Bill stands, we have given complete and outright devolution over the Health Service to the Assembly. That was certainly not the Government's wish and it is not the wish of the Opposition.
Looking at the brighter side, Lords amendment no. 105 is notable not least because it is the first in the longest unbroken string of amendments accepted by the Government. According to the list,


the Government have accepted Lords amendments nos. 105 to 126–21 in all. They are all amendments to schedule 2. which splits the functions between the Assembly and Ministers in accordance with clause 9(1). As we know, functions exercisable by the Assembly are listed in the left hand column of the schedule, whereas excluded functions reserved for Ministers are listed in the right hand column. Therefore, the schedule is the skeleton of devolution proposed by the Government.
Far be it from me to look a gift skeleton in the mouth—this string of amendments that the Government have accepted—but it is remarkable that the Government are still chopping and changing at this very late stage with regard to the functions that are or are not to be devolved and how they are to be devolved. I think that by now the Government would be well advised to pursue the old sub-editorial rule—when in doubt, leave out. We are clearly very much in doubt on how to proceed with devolution in connection with the Health Service.
As the Minister said, amendment no. 105 and the other amendments refer to the Health Service in Wales. There is considerable anxiety in medical circles in Wales that the Health Service there should in no way be separated from the National Health Service as a whole. The fears expressed to us have been to the effect that, if that were to happen, there would be a danger that different standards of health care would develop and that we would have difficulty in recruiting staff to the Welsh Health Service because of its separate character.
I have here a report of the meeting of the Welsh Council of the BMA reported in the Western Mail on 13th July. It is worth quoting the report to the House:
Welsh doctors have again given a warning that devolution may lead to a lowering of medical standards. …
The doctors are worried that home rule for Wales will lead to the Principality attracting fewer and less well-qualified staff.
They also fear amendments to the Wales Bill could make manipulation of committtee membership possible. Specialists would then be appointed to areas where it would be politically expedient for the Assembly.
Dr. Murray Jones, the chairman, said:
In the field of general practice we are concerned, among other things, that the proposed executive assembly could usurp the present

powers of the Secretary of State for Wales, regarding appeals from the investigation of alleged service breaches.
As doctors we cling to the hope that medicine can be kept out of party politics.

Mr. Alec Jones: Certainly it is right and proper that the hon. Gentleman should refer to deeply held feelings on this subject. But I ask him to remember that the article was written and the meeting that it describes was held before the Bill had completed its passage in another place. As I indicated, I hope that the House will correct some of the errors that undoubtedly occurred in another place. The correction of those errors will allay the fears expressed in that article.

Mr. Roberts: I think that I can relieve the Minister on that point. We are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to clear up the situation.
Lords amendment no. 105 removes from the excluded functions the powers of a health authority, under the National Health Service Act 1977, to employ officers
on such terms as it may determine in accordance with regulations and such directions as may be given by the Secretary of State
after he has consulted such bodies as he may recognise as representing persons affected by his regulations.
The amendment to remove that function from the reserved powers, which meant giving it to the Assembly, was moved in Committee in the other place by Lord Donaldson and then, curiously, withdrawn after a powerful argument against it by Lord Hill of Luton. Lord Hill, in a related debate, made quite devastating points to the effect that appointments should be made by those who knew the circumstances and the needs of particular hospitals and that the respossibility should not be transferred to any other body distant from those running the Health Service. He seemed to be putting forward an argument against the devolution of the Health Service in Wales.
The noble Lord went on to ask a very pertinent question: if the Government's intention is to sustain current standards, why not leave the responsibility where it is now? He implied that it did not make sense to change and to transfer responsibility to the Assembly. It makes even less sense then to give the


Secretary of State, under another amendment, the power to tell the Assembly how to exercise its responsibilities. Even Lord Donaldson accepted that it was an "admittedly elaborate system". The Minister confirmed its complexity. As I said, Lord Donaldson then withdrew the amendment. Nevertheless, it is now back with us again in the same form.
Amendment no. 191 would leave out the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Assembly as to the exercise of any of its functions in relation to the provision of general medical services by an area health authority, general dental services, ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services. But the Government, as we have heard, disagree with this amendment as it stands, and in their own amendment to Lords amendment no. 191 they have added to the Secretary of State's power the power to give directions to an authority to employ officers on such terms as it may determine in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
In short, it seems that what the Government have done is to reinforce the power apparently lost by the Secretary of State by amendment No. 105. They have strengthened it in particular with regard to pay and remuneration of doctors and other employees of the NHS in Wales.
8.30 p.m.
I am not at all sure that the Government have got it right yet. Their policy was stated in the other place on more than one occasion. I shall quote only Lord Donaldson, who said:
It is the policy of the Government that the Assembly should have powers in respect of the administration of the National Health Service in Wales and in respect of the private sector of medicine. This was laid down in the White Paper on devolution and there has been no change in the Government's intent on this since. There has, however, been a change of policy with regard to pay and pensions of Health Service staff.
The Government's original proposals in the Scotland and Wales Bills were to devolve pay and pensions of health service staff to the Assembly, but the exercise of the powers was to be subject to the consent of the Government. This is still the scheme adopted in the Scotland Bill; but on 26th July, the Lord President announced that the pay and pensions of Health Service employees in Wales would be reserved.

Lord Donaldson then went on to talk about the difficulties of effecting this policy in terms of legislation. He said:
To overcome these difficulties, the scheme adopted in the Bill achieves the Government's policy intentions which are, as mentioned, to reserve the essential matters concerned with remuneration and to devolve those concerned with the day-to-day running of the National Health Service in Wales. The arrangements are as follows. The functions in the relevant sections of the 1977 Act are devolved to the Assembly in Part VI of Schedule 2. But the amendment to the 1977 Act in Schedule 11 to the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Assembly about the exercise of these functions. The Secretary of State can therefore determine the aspects of any Assembly regulations which are concerned essentially with remuneration, and then direct the Assembly as to what the regulations should contain in this respect."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15th June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 564–6.]
Lord Donaldson went on to talk of further complications in this connection. Nevertheless, he believed that the scheme devised by the Government achieved a workable and sensible result. Nevertheless, the Government have felt it necessary further to amend and strengthen, at this late stage, the power of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hill called this a bogus piece of devolution, designed to blind those who want more and more devolution. It is certainly a botched-up piece of devolution in the sense that it pretends to give to the Assembly control over the day-to-day running of the Health Service in Wales while it reserves to the Secretary of State the power to issue regulations which the Assembly is obliged to observe.
Earlier today we discussed the power of the Assembly to subsume the functions of various bodies, including the area health authorities, under clause 60. I can think of nothing worse for the Health Service in Wales than that Assemblymen should take over from the health authorities.
Finally, I refer briefly to amendment no. 192.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will not the hon. Member agree that, while, he argues that the Assembly might subsume certain functions of the area health authority, there does not in fact exist in Wales the tier which is the regional health authority in England which is, indeed, subsumed in the Welsh Office?


Does he not agree that there are important decisions, particularly of resource allocation, which have to be taken at regional health authority level in England and which would be taken in Wales by the Assembly, in that the Assembly would be introducing into the Health Service in Wales a structure which seems to be acceptable to the Conservative Party in the context of England?

Mr. Roberts: But it is my understanding—and I am certain of it—that the area health authorities already come under clause 60 and that the Assembly can take over the functions of the area health authorities—and, indeed, of community health councils if it comes to that.
I was referring to Lords amendment no. 192, which seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to require functions to be conferred on him by or under regulations made by the Assembly. This requirement, contained in paragraph 94 of schedule 11, is in itself a reductio ad absurdum of devolution in connection with the Health Service, because the Secretary of State has got himself into the ridiculous situation where he may have to require the Assembly to give him back functions that he may have given it earlier. That is an amazing position for the Government to have got themselves into, but it might be even worse if we upheld their Lordships in amendment no. 192.
The Government should never have sought to devolve responsibility for the Health Service in Wales. They have found it well-nigh impossible to separate day-to-day responsibility from responsibility for the remuneration and terms and conditions of those who work in the service. What we have now, despite the Minister's assurance, is a very indistinct line of demarcation between the Assembly's responsibilities and those of the Secretary of State which will undoubtedly lead to confusion and probably a deterioration within the Health Service itself.

Mr. Dalyell: May I take 30 seconds for an expression of exasperation?
We are told by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that the Government accept the principle of devolution in this matter, and then he goes on to say that we are giving the Secretary of State power to reserve certain powers be-

cause uniformity must be ensured—and, of course, we are referring to uniformity in certain delicate areas. We are then told that the Assembly can manage the National Health Service. I agree with the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) that if it means anything it means Assemblymen taking part in the day-to-day running of the service, and we are back, therefore, to the debate before last.
We are getting into great difficulties of window dressing. What irks some of us is that the cost of setting up the Welsh Assembly is now estimated to be about £12½ million. On 3rd March, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and I had a full day's debate on the need to help kidney patients. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—who, alas, is in hospital, and we all hope that he gets better soon—gave us a very full answer that the basic trouble in dealing with those suffering from kidney problems was a shortage of money because the NHS was becoming more and more expensive for sophisticated operations.
Yet here we are spending all this money on setting up this huge structure, and it becomes clear as we go on, day by day, that sensitive issues such as doctors' pay are fudged. There is another tier of government introduced gratuitously at a cost of millions of pounds. We are talking about the National Health Service being desperately short of money in order to treat its patients, yet here we are squandering taxpayers' money under this Bill. That is my complaint.

Mr. Hooson: It seems that the critics of the Bill will carp at anything. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke just to make the gratuitous point that the Assembly will cost £12½ million. Many things cost a great deal of money. We have allocated hundreds of millions of pounds to the National Enterprise Board and to British Leyland. Did the hon. Gentleman object to that? Of course not. It is because he is against devolution that he is prepared to run anything, however insignificant it may appear to the rest of us, just to make another point against devolution.
We are faced with a practical problem. It is right that the administration of the NHS should be devolved to the Assembly. It is a function at present exercised by


the Secretary of State for Wales, and it seems natural that we should transfer it. We do not have a regional tier in Wales. That is represented by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office. The Assembly will be performing in Wales the function that is performed by the regional tier in England.
We are all concerned to ensure that when devolution is brought about there is no slip-up that allows the possibility of a deterioration in the standards of the NHS in Wales. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) gave currency to misgivings and apprehensions that the Government have made clear they wish to remove. It is a complicated subject and the doctors are not concerned with how it is achieved, but whether it is achieved.
The expedient employed by the Government to achieve this result, namely, that the Secretary of State has a directing power, is a safeguard to ensure that the doctors' apprehensions and misgivings are removed. Does it do it? I believe that it does. I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and he has been concerned to ensure that these apprehensions and misgivings are removed. It does not behove the Conservatives to give currency to apprehensions that the Government are determined to remove. If the Conservatives believe that there is another way of doing it, let them put forward their proposals. I do not see that their carping criticism on this point takes us any further.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that people have serious cause for concern when, on the last day of our consideration of Lords amendments we are changing the Bill in a highly significant fashion and the Government are still talking about complexity and the difficulty of achieving what they want to achieve in a proper fashion?

Mr. Hooson: The Government have to do it at this stage because another place passed an amendment that put the whole control of the NHS into the hands of the Assembly—with no safeguards at all. That is why certain changes are necessary. Even if another place had not passed the amendment, it would have

been necessary for the Government to introduce some means of safeguarding standards in Wales. The specialists who have been in touch with me are concerned that, for example, the Assembly should not be able to pass rules to enable it to appoint consultants without having the normal recourse to outside referees suggested by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons. They are also concerned about pay, conditions and standards.
Surely the House should ensure that the Government have provided a sufficient safeguard. I believe that they have, and I have heard nothing to suggest that they have not found the right way of achieving the object.

8.45 p.m.

Sir David Renton: With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), he is deluding himself. He is a keen devolutionist, I know, but if he will follow me I think he will see that devolution in regard to the National Health Service is nothing like as complete as might be expected.
At the moment, the Secretary of State is responsible instead of a regional health authority for the NHS in Wales. The Government are purporting to hand over the responsibility for that and all the functions of the Secretary of State to the Assembly. But they are blowing hot and cold. What they give with one hand they are clawing back with another. That is what this debate is about.
It is regrettable that such an important matter should be hidden by so much complexity of legislation, but I have done my best to work it through. The Government are accepting Lords amendment no. 105, but with some insincerity because they are making an amendment to Lords amendment no. 192 so that the Secretary of State will retain considerable powers over the Assembly.
It is perhaps arguable, and it has been argued, that in order to maintain high standards of proficiency by medical practitioners, consultants, dentists, pharmacists and others, the Government should have some control. If that were all, I should not mind so much, but the powers that the Secretary of State will claw back are much wider than Government spokesmen in either House have indicated.
Our difficulty is that, under a guillotine, it is time-consuming to go through all the statutory provisions that we need to get on to the record, and if necessary to read them out fairly fully, to understand the position. I would point out that under section 29 of the National Health Service Act, which is one of those under which the Secretary of State will retain his powers, besides remuneration and conditions of service he will retain responsibility
for the preparation and publication of lists of medical practitioners who undertake to provide general medical service; for conferring a right on any person to choose, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the medical practitioner by whom he is to be attended".
for the distribution of those lists among medical practitioners whose names are on the lists so that people can make a choice; for
the issue to patients or their personal representatives by medical practitioners … of such certificates as may be prescribed, being certificates reasonably required by them".
There we get into clinical matters.
Then there is the discipline of medical practitioners, which goes beyond what is normally understood as conditions of service—their removal from the list and so on. We find that under sections 34 to 43, which are also invoked, there are regulations for medical practices committees. Then for general dental services the Dental Estimates Board is covered by section 37, which is one of those invoked. Then for general ophthalmic services we have the same sort of provisions as those which quoted with regard to general medical services, and the same goes for pharmaceutical services.
The story does not end there, because we find that, as a result of this House being asked to reject Lords amendment no. 192, the power of the Secretary of State under the previous paragraph, which is the one which invokes all those sections of the National Health Service Act 1977, includes power to require functions to be conferred on him by or under regulations made by the Assembly. It means that the Assembly is not even its own master in the matters in which the Bill gives a power to make regulations. The Bill gives power to make regulations, but the Secretary of State can alter the regulations.

Mr. Alec Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would advocate the complete devolution of these matters? If he is not prepared to accept the argument which I put forward, the only alternative available to the House is the complete devolution of these matters.

Sir D. Renton: I am not saying that. The Opposition have opposed the complete devolution of so many of these executive functions all along.
I am saying that the Minister ought not to try to anaesthetise the Welsh people in this way. I do not say that there is any blinding with legislative science, but when one gets down to the statutory references involved in all these cross-references one finds that the Secretary of State will have considerable power over the Assembly in the matters which have been mentioned and, indeed, in matters beyond those which have been mentioned, in addition to the powers which I had the temerity to refer to on Third Reading when I said that, although there was no allegation of deliberate misrepresentation, the Welsh people would be misled in believing that on, for example, the siting of hospitals the Assembly would be completely its own master. It will not be completely its own master, because the Secretary of State retains important, final decisive powers over town and country planning matters, over the compulsory purchase of land for public purposes and so on.
I say as mildly as I can that the Welsh people must understand that they are not getting complete devolution of their National Health Service. I think that it is better that they should not have it. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and his party and Plaid Cymru want them to have it. They must not think that they will get it completely.

Mr. Hooson: They do not.

Sir D. Renton: I am sure that a great many of them do, and we must make it clear to them exactly how much devolution they will get and what devolution they will not get.

Mr. Dalyell: It is, of course, the forty-fifth day of our devolution proceedings


and we are still on these difficult arguments. Is it not a fact that almost 10 years ago the doctors made their views clear to Kilbrandon?

Sir D. Renton: I understand that to be so. I am not in a position, because I have not refreshed my memory, to deal with that matter in answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hooson: Surely it is the Conservative Party, with all its propaganda, which has suggested that the Assembly is to have much greater powers than is the case. The powers given to the Assembly are very limited. This has been abundantly clear to those of us on the Liberal Bench for a long time. It is the Front Bench speakers, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have been suggesting to the people of Wales that the Assembly would have draconian powers.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. and learned Member, in spite of his normal lucidity of mind, has got this thoroughly mixed up. All that we on the Opposition Benches have been doing to the best of our ability is to point out exactly what the effect of this highly complex Bill will be so that in some way the Welsh people can understand what a complete legislative dog's dinner they will be voting for—or against.

Sir Raymond Gower: I thank the Government for attempting to improve the position following the Bill's return to this House from another place. The Minister ought not, however to seek to give the impression that the damage was done by some outside body. It is my recollection that in another place one of the amendments to which he has referred was introduced by Lord Donaldson while another was introduced by an Opposition peer but accepted by Lord Donaldson on behalf of the Government. In some respects, the Government have created the situation which they now seek to remedy.
To deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), I do not believe that it is possible to accuse Conservative Members of trying to exaggerate the dangers of the Bill. There are dangers in it and it is right that they should be mentioned. If the hon. and learned Member does

not see the dangers or is not concerned about them, that is because he takes a different view of the possibilities which may emerge from devolution. We are anxious about it. However, if the Bill is to become law we want it to be as perfect an instrument as possible, ensuring that the devolved Assembly will conduct its affairs in a businesslike manner and that its powers will be reasonably and properly exercised.
It is certainly desirable that questions of pay and remuneration should not be separated from such matters in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want the kind of treatment offered by the National Health Service in Wales to change radically—

Mr. Hooson: It will not.

Sir R. Gower: We sincerely hope not. We hope that the highest standards will prevail in Wales. There is obviously a danger that an Assembly will have priorities different from those we have in this Parliament. This is the danger we have to face when we seek to ensure that the wording of the Bill does not enable the Assembly to depart too far from general practice in the United Kingdom. This is what I hope the Government have achieved by the radical alterations to this narrow part of the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We have recently been celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the foundation of the National Health Service, and in Wales we are proud that it was Nye Bevan who, as Minister of Health, created the Service which led to the principle that health services would be available to people throughout Britain depending not on their ability to pay but on their need.
If there is any anxiety that a change in the administration of the National Health Service in Wales will lead to the Service in the Principality being different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, we should consider this matter seriously. Let us admit that we are faced with a difficult task because of all these various cross-references. We are moving towards the midnight hour, as it were, in deciding the contents of the Bill, and we ought to admit that had it not been for


the other place sending back an amendment to the schedule we should not have been able to debate this matter.
We have been critical of the Conservative Party because of the way in which it dealt with the reorganisation of local government, of the water industry and of the National Health Service itself. If changes are to be made, let us be certain that what we do will lead to an improvement in the Service. Will there be any disparity between Wales and England in the benefits to be derived from the NHS? We are still not certain what is to happen. We have not yet been told what financial allocation will be determined by this House in the block grant that is to be administered by the Assembly. Will the finances of the NHS be affected by the block grant?
We ought to know the answer to that question before we make any changes, and I am certain that in saying that I carry with me the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I am sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman reflects on the matter he will realise that the debates in the Assembly will not be on whether there should be more Welsh language signs or more hospital beds.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is dealing with some of the problems facing us. There is tremendous controversy in my valley because the reorganisation of the Health Service has led to an increase in administrative costs. There is also the problem of the reorganisation of the hospitals. We are faced with the transfer of hospital facilities from one valley to the next. The valley communities think very highly of the Health Service. They are proud that it was from the valleys that Nye Bevan came to this House and established the National Health Service, which became the envy of the world and has been copied by many countries. We should not take lightly what is being proposed. We should not make changes before we receive clarification of what is to happen.
I believe in a more democratic answer. One can argue about the way in which the area health authorities and community health councils are being developed. Local authorities are allowed to nominate representatives to the local community councils. That is at least partial democratisation. If the community health

councils and area health authorities are to be subsumed by the new Assembly—something which, presumably, the Assembly will have power to do—I do not think that we are talking about bringing the Health Service nearer to the people. We cannot be said to be doing that if the health authorities in Caernarvon, Carmarthen and Merioneth, to name but three localities, are subsumed by Cardiff. That is the problem that we face.
I am more seriously concerned, however, about the financing of the Health Service. I therefore seek an assurance that Wales will continue to get an allocation of resources comparable to the rest of the country.
Nye Bevan spoke of this important principle when he said that the mining valleys were crying out for medical attention to deal with serious illness but that no doctors would go to them. The doctors were going instead to places like Bournemouth and Eastbourne because of the financial incentive. We long ago turned our back on all that, and I hope that the Government are not suggesting that we should return to it.
The financial allocation to the Health Service in Wales must be based on the needs of the area, and we must retain the equality for which we fought and which we have celebrated over the last 30 years.

Mr. Dalyell: I would not be too sure about carrying the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) in this line of argument. He is the only man, apart from the nationalists and the Government Front Bench, who since yesterday's daylight hours has had a friendly word to say about the Bill. I am beginning to wonder where all the folk are who want this measure.

Mr. Evans: The hon. and learned Member has the right to express his view. He has had the opportunity of chatting this over with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and he has been given certain assurances—

Mr. Dalyell: Oh!

Mr. Alec Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will be assured that I gave no extra undertakings to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The explanation I gave the hon. and


learned Gentleman was exactly the explanation I gave to the House today.

Mr. Evans: I had not even thought of the Lib-Lab pact. I was simply saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman had discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and had received assurances.
Like the rest of us, the Under-Secretary is proud of the Health Service and wants Wales to get as good as, if not better than, we have had in the last 30 years.

Mr. Alec Jones: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. It has been an interesting discussion basically on the principle of devolution. I do not object to that. In fact, I enjoy it because it gives me the opportunity to prepare my campaing speeches for the referendum.
It would be unthinkable for the Government to propose a scheme of devolution for Wales without transferring management of the Health Service in Wales to the Assembly. I say that for the very reasons adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). We have this close feeling that it is our Health Service and no one alse's. It is not possible to contemplate a Welsh Assembly without the Health Service powers.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) quoted Lord Hill's remarks in Committee in another place. Of course, the hon. Member does not enjoy the advantages that I have, but I suggest that he ought to have read on. He would then have realised that on Third Reading Lord Hill virtually expressed himself satisfied over the points he had raised.
The hon. Member said that we were chopping and changing, but in the main we are simply reacting to proposals and amendments by another place. Without disrespect to those who took part, I point out that there were amendments carried on this issue which I am sure would not satisfy the anti-devolutionalists, which certainly do not meet with the approval of the professions concerned.
I realise that there are these fears. Indeed, I met the British Medical Association on this problem not so very long

ago, and we set out to try to overcome those fears. In the main they were concerned with pay and the closely related terms of service the sort of question which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) raised in regard to consultants.
In the amendments we have set out to ensure that we can sustain standards right across the board and at the same time allow the Welsh Assembly to administer the National Health Service in Wales, while observing the uniform standards of England and Wales. This is why the Secretary of State has been given powers of direction in this field.
I accept the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes. He might say that it is a little untidy to give devolution with one hand and to take it away with the other. I accept that in a unitary State we are bound to get difficulties of this sort if we move at all along the road to devolution. There is no perfect, clearcut, easily understood answer, and I accept that there are difficulties which are inherent in the system. But I believe that amendment no. 105 brings the terms and conditions of service of employed Health Service staff into line with those of medical practitioners, dentists, opticisians and pharmacists. It brings them all into line.
At the same time, there is the question of ensuring uniformity in standards and in consultants' appointments and matters of that nature. Those matters were demanded when I met the representatives of th BMA, and certainly seemed to be demanded in most speeches made in the other place. I should have thought that they were equally demanded by those hon. Members present tonight.
We have tried to meet all the difficulties which were put to us—

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to refer him, if I may, to paragraph 94(2) of schedule 11, at the top of page 86. It is said there that
The power of the Secretary of State under this paragraph includes power to require functions to he conferred on him by or under regulations made by the Assembly.
What sort of functions does the Minister imagine the Secretary of State requiring back from the Assembly.

Mr. Jones: This is one example of the sort of function which is peculiarly related to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, namely, that in the appointment of consultants the advisory committees play an important role. Those committees consist of a very large proportion of highly qualified consultants, and the committees ensure that there is a uniform standard among the consultants appointed. If the Secretary of State could not have that function transferred back to him, the fear would be, as it was expressed to me, that an Assembly might rejig the composition of committees in such a way as to reduce the representation of consultants, which might possibly have consequences for the standard of the consultants appointed.
That is the sort of power that we believe the Secretary of State ought to have if he is to try to bring about a standard uniform service and to prevent the variations about which fears were expressed to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 106 to 126 agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 127 disagreed to.

Amendments made in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill:

In page 52, leave out lines 20 and 21.

In page 52, leave out line 30 and insert—
and 13.
The functions under section 14 except so far as exercisable in relation to property held by or on behalf of the Assembly or by a company all of whose shares are so held or by a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company.
The functions under section 19(7) and (8).'.

In page 54, line 23, leave out 'and 48'.

In page 54, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
'The functions under paragraphs 46 to 50 of Schedule 3 so far as exercisable by virtue of representations made by excepted statutory undertakers.
The powers under paragraph 53 of Schedule 3 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.'

Line 22 on page 52 to 38 on page 54 transferred to Part VIII of Schedule 2 to the Bill.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment: No. 128, in page 54, line 39, leave out Part X of the schedule.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
While designing and developing the policies incorporated in the Bill, the Government have sought to ensure that the package of functions to be transferred to the Assembly shall be as coherent as possible, so that the border between the functions of the Assembly and Ministers is clear and will not give rise to undue administrative complexity. I am not sure whether I carry the whole House with me when I say that that is what we have striven to do. There have been occasions when Opposition Members have suggested that we might not have achieved our aim, but that was the object of the exercise.
We believe that in considering forestry we must have regard to the analogous subjects of planning, land use, the countryside and tourism. Those subjects, which are intimately connected with the Government's concern for forestry, are dealt with in parts VIII, XIII and XV of schedule 2. One sees that a wide range of ministerial functions are to be transferred.
If functions in respect of forestry were to be reserved while those on other matters such as planning were to be transferred to the Assembly, the activities of the Assembly and those of the Government would tend to impinge on each other in a most undesirable way. There would be a danger that a range of interrelated functions would be carried out less effectively and without the full co-ordination that is required. There is certainly a need for co-ordination between land use and forestry. Most people, I think, would agree.
The extent of new afforestation in Wales is far less than in Scotland. The Forestry Commission is now planting about 10 new hectares in Scotland for every one in Wales. Nevertheless, forestry is a matter of great importance to rural life in Wales. The total area of existing Forestry Commission forest in Wales is almost one-third of that in Scotland, but if we make allowance for Scotland's greater size we find that the proportion of land afforested is about the same.
Unlike the position in Scotland, only an insignificant proportion of Welsh forest extends across the border into England. Most of that is to be found in Mid-Wales.
Forestry is of considerable importance to rural life and employment in Wales. The Government's view is that the Assembly should have the power under the 1967 Forestry Act to determine the extent and the form of afforestation to be undertaken.
However, we are in this matter, as in so many others, talking only about executive devolution. The Assembly will have no powers in forestry which are not currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. As with the Secretary of State's powers, they will generally be exercised not directly but through the Forestry Commission. An order will be made under clause 59 after consultation with the commission, and after being subject to affirmative resolution of both House of Parliament that order will determine the precise arrangements for the commission's accountability to the Assembly.
I want to make it quite clear that the commissioners will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. They will serve as a common source of expert advice on forestry matters to the Assembly and the Government. As an organisation, the commission will continue to operate as a single body, with a common staff structure and common pay scales. It already has a regional structure, with tripartite ministerial control. This is readily adaptable to meet the needs of devolution.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Assembly could alter the grants currently paid to private forestry owners

Mr. Jones: Yes, I think I must say that that is possible, but my understanding, after discussions is that of far greater importance to the private forester is the taxation level. I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but my information is that the level of taxation is more important than grants. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on the level of taxation are not being devolved.
The present position will be maintained in three further important respects. The fiscal treatment of forestry is to be reserved, and so also is plant health. The commission's research facilities will be maintained in a unified form, although the Assembly will be able to commission research if it wishes.
It has been argued that it is wrong to devolve forestry while reserving agriculture. Clearly there is a strong link between forestry and agriculture, but the Government's view is that this link is no greater than the link between land planning and other matters that I have previously described.
There are particular reasons for reserving agriculture which do not apply to forestry. Apart from its greater EEC implications, which we cannot ignore, agriculture is far more immediately susceptible to Government support policies than forestry is. In forestry, harvesting takes place many years after initial investment and prices are determined mainly by the prices of imported timber. Unlike agriculture, forestry can be devolved without significant implications for the United Kingdom as a whole.
We have weighed all the considerations with care and have concluded that it is right to transfer forestry functions to the Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that there is no significant implication for the United Kingdom as a whole. But I think that many of his colleagues have had letters from the British Paper and Board Industry Federation and from Bill Keys, the general secretary of SOGAT, outlining the difficulties for the paper and board industry, for instance, if forestry is devolved.

Mr. Jones: I have seen letters indicating all sorts of fears, but I must admit that in my investigation into the subject—under the Secretary of State for Wales I have some responsibility for both agriculture and forestry in Wales—the evidence which has come to me does not confirm the fear expressed by my hon. Friend. Therefore, we believe that it is right to transfer forestry functions to the Welsh Assembly.
However, it is not possible to prejudge the priority which the Assembly will give to forestry. I could not give an absolute


guarantee on that. Indeed, United Kingdom Governments have in the past often been criticised for giving too low a priority to forestry. Therefore, no one can suggest that the industry believes that it now gets an over-abundance of support from the United Kingdom Government, and we have no reason to believe that there will be any less support from a Welsh Assembly.
However, because of the close concern in Wales for the development of rural life—this has been reflected in the Government's decision to establish the Development Board for Rural Wales—we believe that the Welsh Assembly will be responsible in its approach to forestry and that it is entirely appropriate that the Assembly should take over the powers which are currently exercised by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We are debating the future of an important industry which contributes about £160 million a year to the balance of payments and which, if developed, could substantially reduce the £2,000 million which we at present spend on imported timber and forest products. Of course, the industry has to operate in a European and world market, where it is comparatively small. It will not be helped to compete effectively in that market or to reach its full potential if its organisation is complex and fragmented. It is an industry which more than any other depends on confidence, continuity and certainty, because the time scale of production is so long. It will be our children even more than we ourselves who will suffer the consequences if we do the wrong thing.
Those involved in the industry are united in their opinion that forestry should be conducted on a United Kingdom basis. The unanimity is impressive. Because of the guillotine motion and because of the late hour, I shall not read a long list of all the forestry organisations, but I can say without fear of contradiction that all the representative bodies, including the trade union side and the timber trade, are united in their opposition to this proposal in the Bill.
That is also the view of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, which is an advisory committee to the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission, is a Government agency and its

lips are sealed, but I do not think that it requires any great feat of detection to ascertain where its sympathies lie. Its former chairman, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has written a letter making very clear his views about the matter. I shall not read again the whole letter for reasons of time, but he says that
it would now be a piece of nonsense to devolve forestry. It would add to the bureaucracy and it would make it increasingly difficult for the industry to deal with so many government bodies if the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland were added".
He goes on to ask that his views should be made known.
In the face of the need for continuity and certainty, and in the face of the unanimous view of those engaged in forestry, the Government have decided to fragment the industry. They are, of course, retaining a single Forestry Commission, but that commission is to be responsible to three wholly different bodies at the same time, each constituted in an entirely different way. Its bosses will be the Government here, a legislative Assembly in Scotland, and a quite different executive Assembly in Wales.
Land use policy, the tax structure and the grants system together play a vital part in creating the atmosphere in which the industry operates. It is no good the Minister picking out tax policy and thinking that that is all that matters. It is the combination of all the factors which decides whether timber is grown.
It is folly to create a situation in which fiscal policy is the responsibility of central Government at Westminster while land use and grant policy is in the hands of separate Assemblies. It is especially an act of folly when those factors are also critical to the well-being of agriculture, for which responsibility is not devolved, despite the fact that agriculture and forestry should be two industries working in partnership. Everyone who is interested in the proper use of rural land is agreed on this point, yet the Minister seemed pretty half-hearted.
9.30 p.m.
It is a matter for regret that we recognise a distinction at all between the two industries. We should not regard them as separate industries because they are really component parts of a single industry which bases its production on land. It is true that forestry usually


employs the land which is not suitable for arable use, but plantings must be considered in relation to agriculture, hill grazing and shelter for stock. When roads are constructed for forestry use, particularly in remote upland areas, it makes possible agriculture operations which could not otherwise be contemplated.
I find it deeply disturbing that the Minister, who has responsibility for agriculture at the Welsh Office, understands this relationship so inadequately. On the last occasion he spoke in the House on this matter he said:
The main links are between forestry and other devolved activities which are important to the economy of rural Wales—the countryside, tourism and the functions of the Development Board for Rural Wales. Forestry has closer links with those matters than with agriculture. That is why we feel we were right to devolve forestry.
That really reverses the relationships. That is an urban view, and is very understandable coming from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) who looks at the countryside as a playground for towns people.

Mr. Alec Jones: The next time the hon. Member comes to the Rhondda he might have a look around. He will hardly see the mountains for the forests.

Mr. Edwards: Of course. But the Minister regards them as places in which the people of the Rhondda can indulge in recreation. Few people who live in rural Wales believe that we plant primarily for environmental reasons or for tourism. We plant to produce a crop and to make use of the resources of the land. Of course, we should take account of the environmental impact of large-scale afforestation, but it is the effective use of the productive potential of the land which is the prime objective. The other things usually follow from it—the scenery that attracts the tourists, the jobs, the roads and the ancillary services. They are the beneficial by-products. But it all starts with the decision about production, and not the other way round.
Britain has beautiful countryside because it has been farmed and planted. It was not farmed and planted to make it beautiful. Of course, the interests of agriculture and forestry must be recon-

ciled with other interests. Modern farming techniques and plantations can be damaging to those interests. I have my home in a Welsh valley where agriculture, large-scale forestry and tourism all combine. I can hardly fail to be acutely aware of some of the problems that this produces.
It is rather curious that just at the moment when the advisory council for agriculture and horticulture in England and Wales has produced an important report at the request of the Government, recommending an integration of the work of the Ministry of Agriculture with that of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, and suggesting that the Ministry should take on a wider responsibility for landscape conservation in which the agriculture grants system would play an important part, we should be destroying the mechanism which already exists in Wales to ensure that such a policy is carried out.
It was partly because I saw a role for the Welsh Office in this area that I urged the transfer of responsibility for agriculture to the Welsh Office. That has been done. The opportunity for useful integration is there. The Minister spoke about the need for that integration, but he is now destroying the mechanism which he has created just at the moment when he has got it successfully established.
As Lord Skelmersdale pointed out in another place, the decisions about whether to permit plantings in Wales will now have to be tossed backwards and forwards between the Welsh Office responsible for agriculture and the Assembly responsible for forestry and environmental matters.
The nub of the Government's case is that the Assembly's land use policy would be prejudiced if forestry were not devolved. But they themselves recognise that this argument is by no means overwhelming. The Minister did not use the words tonight, but in the passage of the Scotland Bill the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, said that he felt that the balance lay that way, and the phrase "on balance" was repeated in another place.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge admitted that the extent of new afforestation and of existing forests in Wales is much less than in Scotland. Yet though the


argument in favour is on their own admission only marginal, they insist on pressing ahead against the judgment and anger of the whole industry.
Surely one other vital factor should weigh in the argument, and that is the contribution that forestry can make, with agriculture, to the national economy. The Government rightly insist on retaining control of economic, industrial and agricultural policy, and yet they surrender much of their ability to influence the size and productive potential of an industry which is at present one of our largest importers and has a massive impact on the balance of payments.
On an argument that is finely balanced in their own minds, the Government should reconsider the economic consequences of what they are doing. They should take heed of the united opposition of all those engaged in forestry, and I believe that they should withdraw their proposals. If they fail to do so, I urge this House to support the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. John Parker: I should like to take the House back to the great lockout that occurred in the mining industry in 1926. When the lockout was over, I had the honour to take a party of students, four boys and four girls, down to the Rhondda Valley. We stayed in Tonypandy with various miners involved in that lockout whom we had done our best to support in that great fight.
What struck us during the week we stayed there, in the dereliction that was evident following the collapse of the miners in that battle, was the fact that not only were there closed houses and closed shops but so few green leaves to be seen. We were told that in the past squirrels had been able to go from tree to tree along the whole length of the Rhondda Valley, but at that time only cats could go from one end of the valley to the other—and that was on the rooftops.
Many hon. Members who are interested in forestry have visited Wales to examine the work of the Forestry Commission and owners who have taken an interest in forestry matters. One of the great miracles of South Wales is the way in which the hillsides have been planted with trees in recent years. A great job has been carried out by the Forestry

Commission in the Neath Valley and other valleys. Derelict areas have now been covered with trees and these areas are now blooming. This could have never have happened unless the money had been provided from United Kingdom resources. If Wales had been a separate community, the money would not have been available to carry out that work. A great success has been achieved for the mining valleys by building up the forests.
I visited one of these areas recently with a number of parliamentary colleagues. It is no longer an ugly scar in the countryside but an area of beauty which we enjoyed. Local people enjoy these areas as part of their community. However, I emphasise that that transformation would never have taken place without money from United Kingdom resources.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has obviously studied in great depth the amount that has been sunk into forestry in Wales in these areas. Can he enlighten the House with the exact cost of this tremendous investment which we poor paupers in Wales could not possibly have contemplated?

Mr. Parker: I do not have those figures in my head. One only needs to examine the Forestry Commission's figures to know what has been spent on that job.
1 did not always agree with Nye Bevan, but he made one important pronouncement on this matter. Regarding devolution, he said that the problems in agriculture and forestry, whether in Wales, England or Scotland—whether we were considering Cardiganshire, Argyll or Cumberland—were the same. Whether it was forestry or agriculture, the same approach had to be made by the United Kingdom Government. The problems were the same in all those areas and they had to be approached by the United Kingdom Government in the same way, allowing for local variations where necessary. On that point, I was and am a strong supporter of the views of Nye Bevan.
We cannot deal with this matter on nationalistic lines. On the last occasion that I and many of my colleagues went to Wales, local authorities in every area that we visited asked "Can we have a saw mill here"? If all the saw mills asked for had been set up in Wales, the


timber would not be sufficient to keep them going. A great deal of the timber in Wales goes to Ellesmere Port or to St. Annes, in Bristol. Some of it also goes into Gwent. The timber is spread round the United Kingdom. If we are to have a bigger volume of timber in Wales, we must be able to utilise it wherever the resources are available.
We can make big mistakes by being too nationalistic.
I have for many years been interested in Yugoslavia. I admire Yugoslavia's system of Government and its devolution. But devolution can be carried too far. For example, when it first allowed the different republics to plan their own affairs, within a short time at least three of the republics created factories to provide all the transistor radios for the whole of the union. Some kind of planning control had to be transferred to the central Government. In that instance, I think production was controlled by the central bank. The same could happen here. If we develop resources in one part of the United Kingdom without regard to the United Kingdom as a whole, there will be great wastage in future. I believe in planning and using our resources to the best advantage. Therefore, we should not allow the Yugoslavia situation to happen here.
We need a greater production of timber. But we need to find the land for its production. That can be done only on a United Kingdom basis. This country imports an enormous amount of timber. Many industries use timber, whether for furniture, chipboard or paper. These industries need the timber resources to be produced here if possible. If we do not produce the timber here, other producers may line up against us. They will send in finished products from Sweden, Russia, Finland and so on. We need a greater production of timber here to keep our timber-using industries going, whether in England, Wales or Scotland. It is important that we produce a greater volume of timber than we do at present.
There will soon be a big increase in timber production due to the planning which took place at the end of the First World War. Hugh Dalton certainly instituted a big drive to increase timber production immediately after the Second World War. There will be a big

increase in our consumption of home produced timber as a result of these plantings that took place many years ago, but further plantings are necessary for the next 50 years because there will be a world timber shortage. People exaggerate the timber resources that exist. Let us consider the whole of Northern Russia. The time that it takes to produce a large crop there is over 100 years. We cannot expect just to cut timber down there and reproduce it quickly.
9.45 p.m.
Britain can produce timber very quickly, particularly in Wales, Scotland and the western parts of England. We should be using those resources to produce more of our own timber and to cut down the volume of imports. We always have this big problem of the question of large imports. We could cut them down very much by producing a greater amount of timber for ourselves.
We must plan ahead. The new proposals for splitting, up the Forestry Commission and the organisation of forestry in this country will not help forward a bigger production of timber. I hope and trust that we shall turn down this proposal. Therefore, I support the Lords amendment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should declare an interest in forestry as I have an interest in my brother's company, which is engaged in forestry operations. However, my reason for speaking in this debate is another interest—namely, that the Forestry commission headquarters is in my constituency.
Perhaps I may say how strongly some of us on the Opposition side of the House agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) when he says that forestry and agriculture should exist in harmony and co-operation.
I should like to mention, just as a factor which hon. Members are entitled to take into account, the fact that seven members of the Forestry Commission came to see me at my surgery. One of the matters about which we spoke was the devolution of forestry. They made it absolutely clear that while they might be split and have different views on devolution itself, they are united against the devolution of forestry. The reason why they are united is that they have


a straightforward accounting system, and if devolution goes through this will be broken up. They will have a Welsh accounting system, an English accounting system and a Scottish accounting system, and possibly a United Kingdom accounting system. They said that this would lead to more bureaucracy and less efficiency.
I do not put it more strongly than that, and, of course, whatever this House decides, they will work flat out to make forestry operations work as successfully and efficiently as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of my constituents work in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the Forestry Commission headquarters, and they describe this proposal as gobbledegook.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to hear confirmation from another source.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a very good source too.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: What they fear is that if these proposals go through, very soon there will be a demand for Welsh headquarters in Cardiff, and English headquarters in England. After all, the whole reason for sending the Forestry Commission headquarters to Scotland was that there was a tremendous amount of growth in forestry taking place in Scotland.

Mr. George Thompson: Does the hon. Member recollect that in 1966 the Heath-controlled Conservative Party, as it was then, was in favour of a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland? Why has the Tory Party changed its views?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is the first I have heard about that. I should be delighted if the hon. Member could inform me more about it. I shall check up on it, and perhaps we shall have some correspondence about it.
However, those working in the Forestry Commission headquarters believe very strongly that there is a strong case for an integrated forestry and agriculture policy throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: That is absolutely right.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I mention this because it is not only the Scottish and other various landowners' federa-

tions and the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee that feel this way, but also the officials working in the Forestry Commission headquarters.
There are two further arguments. One is the need for an integrated forestry policy. Our timber imports cost about £2,000 million a year. We import nearly 92 per cent. of our timber requirements Therefore, a United Kingdom national policy on forestry is required, especially in our dealings with the EEC.
If there are three masters for the Forestry Commission—the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Assembly and the House of Commons—it will be very much harder for the EEC countries, when they are formulating—if they do—a common policy on forestry, to know exactly what the position of Britain will be. There could be a conflict of interest between the three authorities.
The second argument is that there are constant calls for closer integration of forestry with agriculture. Both are vital to the country. Indeed, timber imports cost not all that much less than our food imports. As I have pointed out. 92 per cent. of our timber comes from abroad—an enormous percentage. The more we can do to produce our own forestry, the more we can help our balance of payments
There is, therefore, a decisive commercial need to look at agriculture and forestry together. Especially in the case of the uphill farms, the planting of shelter belts can help food production considerably. Thus, to consider agriculture and forestry in harmony and together is important. If, however, the Government say that grants for agriculture are to be dealt with by Parliament but that forestry grants will be devolved, it will be much harder for agriculture and forestry interests always to co-operate in harmony throughout the United Kingdom.
The whole point of the United Kingdom is that on fundamental matters affecting the economy there should be a consistent policy. It would be greatly in the interests of Wales and Scotland and of forestry throughout the United Kingdom that there should be one integrated United Kingdom policy towards both agriculture and forestry.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that after this debate the Minister will look at this


matter again. I know that it is unfair to ask him to think again at the Dispatch Box, but perhaps I can pass him some information that may be relevant. I understand that the other place has given consideration to the forestry amendment on the Scotland Bill and that that amendment is to be brought back to this House. That is relevant. We are getting towards August, and it seems that there could be this ping-pong with the other place.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman giving in to the Lords?

Mr. Evans: No. But on this question of forestry we have heard a moving speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who knows the Forestry Commission. The Government should take into account the representations made by him and all those concerned with forestry, including the employees. I understand that the trade unions and the workers involved do not want to see the Forestry Commission devolved into three parts.
The difficulty with the Bill is that one can hardly see the wood for the trees. I am reminded of what Nye Bevan once said. He was invited to go into a debate on Welsh agriculture and he replied "English sheep, Welsh sheep—they are all the same". Agriculture is to be retained by the Welsh Office but forestry is to be devolved to the Assembly. Yet agriculture and forestry are closely linked. Why, then, separate them?

Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that with agriculture, of all areas of government, because of terrain and geography and climate in Wales, the charactertistics are so different that they have led to different policies and even to different farming unions in Wales. That is recognised by the fact that agriculture has been devolved by the Government to the Welsh Office.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes a false point. He is arguing that we should devolve agriculture to Wales. The Welsh Office is not devolving agriculture to Wales It is retaining it. If the hon. Gentleman proposes to argue that, because geography or terrain are different, agriculture should be devolved to Wales, he should have moved an amendment to that effect.
If the Welsh Office says that it must retain agriculture within the Welsh Office, what is the argument for devolving forestry? Are we doing it because it is being done in Scotland?

Mr. Alec Jones: The reason is clear. No body, including the Government and the Welsh Assembly, can effectively have control over forestry if it does not have control over land use. One cannot plant forests where there is no land.

Mr. Evans: I wish that my hon. Friend had spoken earlier. He has made a good point. Perhaps we should also have excluded the Land Authority for Wales. When we passed the Community Land Act, we had a regional authority in Wales, but I believe that we should not seek to differentiate between different parts of the United Kingdom in relation to land use.
We have oak trees, fir trees, birch trees, yew trees and so on. I do not look at trees and say "There is a Scottish tree. There is a Welsh tree". The old dereliction of the mining valleys has been transformed by the Welsh Office's derelict land unit and the Welsh Development Agency. Forestry has added to the landscapes. and the finance for that improvement of the environment is provided by Parliament.
I have asked before, without getting a reply, whether this work will have to be paid for out of the block grant that will be allocated by this House. There are so many demands on that grant. It will have to pay for the Health Service, the Welsh Development Agency and a whole range of services. Will it also have to pay for the administration of the Forestry Commission?
We still do not know how the grant is to be calculated. There will be great demands upon the grant. Many areas in Wales could be developed for forestry. Will the Assembly have to pay for that out of the block grant? I believe that forestry should be administered on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. Benyon: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) referred to finance in the last part of his speech, because I intervened during the Minister's speech to ask him about grants. Forestry in Wales in future will come not from existing forestry owners


but from new owners and farmers who are integrating and enmeshing forestry within agriculture. They will be dependent upon the grant, and the level of that grant is important for the future.
If I had more time, I would draw the attention of the Minister to the Forestry Commission's document "Wood production—Outlook in Britain". This document postulates an alarming state of affairs. By the year 2000 world demand will have doubled, and by 2025 there will be an enormous deficiency of 7,000 million cubic metres in the world and the price of timber will rise dramatically.
The document postulates the planting of an extra 1 million hectares or an extra 1·8 million hectares. If we follow the latter course, we could halve import costs by the year 2025. We have had a great blessing with North Sea oil. If we use

just a part of its revenues over the next 25 or 30 years, we can transform the timber industry in this country, but it will require centralised direction.

Dividing this small island into three parcels, as the devolution Bills propose, will be gravely detrimental. Every forestry expert and the Forestry Commission itself know that this is crazy. If the amendment is rejected, it will be a sad day for forestry in this country and a sad day for the economy in general.

Mr. Dalyell: It will be a sad day, too, for the unions which do not want forestry devolved—SOGAT and the rest.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247. Noes 280.

Division No. 301]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)
Hunter, Adam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A.(Edge Hill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin(Brighouse)


Ashley, Jack
Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Dormand, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Sain, Mrs Margaret
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brvnmor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(Heywood)
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bates, Alf
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)
Evans, John(Newton)
Judd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kilfedder, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Lee, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Robert C.(Newcastle W)
Freud, Clement
Litterick, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Loyden, Eddie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
George, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Campbell, Ian
Ginsberg, David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Cant, R. B
Gourlay, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
McElhone, Frank


Carter, Ray
Grant, John (Islington C)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
Grocott, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Magee, Bryan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Crowther, Stan(Rotherham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Meacher, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Les
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Bryan(Enfield N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)




Moonman, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tierney, Sydney


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tilley, John


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Rowlands, Ted
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ryman, John
Tomney, Frank


Morton, George
Sedgemore, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle. Rt Hon Roland
Sever, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Ward, Michael


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkinson, John


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Owen. Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Park, Georgo
Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Wigley, Dafydd


Perry. Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Radice, Giles
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Miss Jo
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiliery)



Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Rooker, J. W.
Thompson, George
Mr. James Tinn.


Roper. John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Aitken, Jonathan
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael
Critchley, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David
Hannam, John


Anderson, Donald
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Arnold, Tom
Dalyell, Tam
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Atkins, Ri Hon H (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Drayson, Burnaby
Hawkins, Paul


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hayhoe, Barney


Bell, Ronald
Dunlop, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Durant, Tony
Heseltine, Michael


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Dykes, Hugh
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, W.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hodgson, Robin


Bitten, John
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hordern, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forman, Nige,
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Want'd &amp; W'df'd


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jessel, Toby


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Buchanan, Richard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Jopling, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Duck, Antony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kershaw, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Kimball, Marcus


Bulmer, Esmond
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kinnock, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Goodlad, Alastair
Knox David


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clegs, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockcroft, John
Gray, Hamish
Lawson, Nigel


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Griffiths, Eldon
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cope, John
Grist, Ian
Lloyd, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Grylls, Michael
Loveridge, John


Corrie, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, Richard







McCrind [...]lert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith


McCusker, H.
Page, Richard (Workington)
Spence, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Paisley, Rev Ian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacGregor, John
Parker, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Parkinson, Cecil
Sproat, Iain


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Pink, R. Bonner
Stanley, John


Madel, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mates, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rhodes James, R.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Torney, Tom


Mills, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Molloy, William
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Viggers, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Monro, Hector
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wakeham, John


Montgomery. Fergus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sainsbury, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morgan, Geraint
Sandelson, Neville
Wall, Patrick


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Shersby, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Rente (Wolv NE)
Winterton, Nicholas


Newton, Tony
Silvester, Fred
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Normanton, Tom
Sims, Roger
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hon George


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.



Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Osborn, John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Ovenden, John
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Jim Lester.


Page, John (Harrow West)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Lords amendments nos. 147 and 153 to 155 disagreed to.

Schedule 9

INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN PLANNING MATTERS

Lords amendment: No. 161 in page 68, line 29, at end insert ("section 97").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 255.

Division No. 302]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clemitson, Ivor


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C.)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Buchan, Norman
Corbett, Robin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchanan, Richard
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bates, Alf
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp;P)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Bean, R. E.
Campbell, Ian
Crawshaw, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bidwoll, Sydney
Carter, Ray
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dalyell, Tam




Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Hodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kilfedder, James
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kirov-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Sever, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
Litterlck, Tom
Short, Mrs Benée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Snape, Peter


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Ford, Ben
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Garrett, Johan (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ginsberg, David
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thompson, George


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Tilley, John


Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morton, George
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hayman. Mrs Helene
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heller, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Kooson, Emlyn
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Noble, Mike
Watkinson, John


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes, Gordon
Weetch, Ken


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Huckfleld, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John
Willson, William (Coventry SE)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth
Biggs-Davison, John


Altken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert
Blaker, Peter


Alison, Michael
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bendall, Vivian
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Braine, Sir Bernard







Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heseltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Brooks, Hon Peter
Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brotherlon, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hodgson, Robin
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Budgen, Nick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhodes James, R.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'd)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G (E Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cockcroft, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Corrie, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Lamont, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Mchael (Scarborough)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Dunlop, John
Lloyd, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Durant, Tony
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
McCusker, H.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Forman, Nigel
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Stradling Thomas, j.


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Carthcart)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trotter, Neville


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wakeham, John


Gower, Sr Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan, Geralnt
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wall, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Neubert, iMchael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Hampson, Dr Keith
Normanton, Tom
Wiggins, Jerry


Hannam, John
Nott, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenhem, Mrs Sally
Young, Sir G. (Eallng, Acton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John
Younger, Hon George


Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow Watt)



Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (Wokington)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Hayhoe, Barney
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 162 to 164 and 166 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 129 to 146, 148 to 152, 156 to 160 and 165 agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the decision the House took on amendment no. 128, may I ask whether the Government will give an indication whether they will alter the recommendation that they originally intended to put to the House in relation to Lords amendment no. 173, to which we come later? Secondly, do the Government feel able to give an indication to the House now in regard to their action over Lords amendment no. 75, upon which we voted earlier this evening? Would they go so far as to say that if another place were to be of the opinion that the view taken there originally was to be held, the Government would not seek to overturn that amendment?

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government will look carefully at the situation that has developed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not able to respond immediately to what he asks. The House has reached certain decisions and we shall take account of them.

Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 167, in page 72, line 36, at end insert—

("THE EDUCATION ACT 1944
At the end of section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944 there shall be inserted the following new subsections:
(4A) (a) Where the proposals under this section are made by a Welsh local education authority the Secretary of State shall give public notice of his decision to approve them, with or without modification, or to withhold that approval; and
(b) if that decision is a decision to approve the proposals with modifications the notice shall include a statement of those modifications; but,
(c) that approval or as the case may be that decision to withhold approval shall remain provisional until either

(i) the expiry of the period for the submission of objections laid down under subsection (4B) of this section or,
(ii) where an objection has been submitted during that period, the giving of public notice under subsection (4B) of this section.

(4B) Where the functions of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (4A) of this

section have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly:

(a) those persons entitled under subsection (3) of this section to submit objections may, within two months of public notice being given under subsection (4B) of this section submit to the Secretary of State objections either to the approval or as the case may be to the decision to withhold approval referred to in a public notice made under subsection (4A) of this section; and
(b) the Secretary of State may approve the proposals against which the objections have been submitted after making such modifications therein, if any, as appear to him to be desirable; and
(c) the Secretary of State shall give public notice of his decision to approve the proposals, with or without amendment."")

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944 is concerned with proposals by local education authorities when they establish new schools or cease to maintain others or with proposals which involve making significant changes in the character or size of premises of a school.
Subsection (4A) contains the Secretary of State's power of approval over such schemes. This power is devolved to the Assembly by schedule 2. The new subsection (4A) inserted by the amendment would require the Assembly to give public notice of its decisions. The new subsection (4B) would allow persons to submit objections to the Secretary of State in respect of schemes approved by the Assembly. The Secretary of State could then approve the schemes, with or without modification. The effect of the amendment would therefore be to place the Secretary of State in the position of a kind of court of appeal in respect of education decisions of this kind made by the Assembly.
Hon. Members will appreciate that schedule 2 transferred wide-ranging powers in education matters to the Assembly. It will effectively be responsible for the education system in Wales. But if the amendment were accepted, the Assembly's powers would be circumscribed in respect of one corner of the education system. An extra layer of government would be imposed and the Secretary of State for Wales would be placed in the invidious position of having to interfere in the running of education in Wales.
For all these reasons, the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. The amendment is so seriously technically defective that if it were passed into law it would have an unclear result which the courts would have some difficulty in interpreting. But I am making my case not on the technical aspect but on the extreme difficulty of trying to interpose the Secretary of State as a court of last appeal in a sphere—education—where all the primary functions will have been devolved to the Assembly.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the Minister will forgive me if I say, as I feel bound to say, that his advice on this occasion is unusually thin, particularly the suggestion that the amendment is so seriously defective that it would cause grave difficulties. Either that is meant to be taken seriously or it is not. If it is meant to be taken seriously, I do not think that a vague statement of that kind will impress the House one little bit. Had the Minister wanted that suggestion to be taken seriously, it would have been necessary for him to explain in what sense the amendment is defective. No doubt, with the customary good will that Governments show on these occasions, he would have provided his good offices to assist in making the amendment as effective as it should be, because there is no difficulty at all in seeing what was the intention of the other place.
Like so many of the issues in the Bill, although not here a constitutional one in the stricter sense of the word, this again shows some of the basic problems with which one is faced in setting up a devolution system of the kind to be set up in the Welsh Assembly. It is all very well to say, "Let us set up an Assembly; let us make the decision not to make it a legislative Assembly; let us confine it to being an executive Assembly and then give it a wide range of powers, particularly powers over education", but that does not resolve the problem in its entirely because the Government themselves have not actually done that. What they have done has been to say that broadly speaking, education should be devolved, but there are certain areas within education—and I am not talking about the universities—which should not be devolved.
Therefore, one is really asking a question which even on the Government's philosophy of devolution has to be asked, which is where to draw the line. The way the Minister put it seemed to imply that any exclusion of any education matter was inconsistent with the scheme of devolution. Plainly, that is not so. In order to establish that point, I invite the House to look at part III of schedule 2 on page 39. There one immediately sees a list of enactments in the left-hand column and the excluded functions in the right-hand column. All of these enactments relate to education. Of course, the most important are the Education Acts 1944 to 1976, of which the amendment deals with part.
In the right-hand column, under "Excluded functions" one finds:
The function under section 45 (4) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31) of issuing instructions to local offices of the Department of Employment.
The functions under section 75 (1) of that Act.
The function under section 77 of that Act of making recommendations to Her Majesty on the appointment of inspectors.
The functions under section 100 (1) (b) of that Act so far as relating to terms and conditions of service, pensions, gratuities or allowances payable on retirement or death, or compensation for loss of office or employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.
The function of giving certificates under section 115 of that Act.",
and several other functions, which I shall not weary the House by reading out. The same applies to the Sex Discrimination Act functions.
What one sees there is that the Government themselves have decided that there are certain areas, even within education, which should not be devolved to the Assembly. Therefore, one cannot answer with an automatic "no" when one is asked whether anything relating to education should be reserved to the Secretary of State. One must ask about the particular function and whether it is sensible to reserve it. The right approach is to ask on what principle one decides whether a power should be devolved.
A number of criteria must be borne in mind in considering this. One criterion must be that the decisions relate to matters about which feeling is very strong and there is reason to believe that real


benefit would be derived from a view of a less local and more detached character. This is an important consideration which leads one to suggest that the power concerned should not be devolved. If it is devolved, it is reasonable that there should be some kind of reserve mechanism to enable a less local and more detached judgment to be expressed at the end of the day.
I do not think that anyone who has served in this House would have doubts about the proposition that there is no sphere of activity that is more controversial or on which feelings are more deeply held than education—particularly in relation to closing, opening or changing the character of a school. Without embarking on the ideologically controversial area of the imposition of comprehensive education, I point out that we have all experienced intense controversy about the closure of schools, or about changing their character. Such issues arouse passions, and local opinion is likely to be mobilised on an extensive scale.
When one adds the particular factors that might arise in Wales as a result of the language issue, and the possible implications of that, one does not need to go any further in pointing out the extreme delicacy of decisions of this kind.
The Lords have said that in such cases there should be at least a possibility of a review of the situation by the Secretary of State. They are not saying that the Welsh Assembly should be deprived of its primary right to determine the matter. They are saying that there may be occasions in this peculiarly delicate area where the Welsh Assembly might be too close to the problem to provide the objectivity required for a decision of this nature.
In this whole procedure we are seeking objective decisions. Otherwise, the councils or local authorities themselves would be able to make the decisions under the 1944 Education Act. The reason why a local authority cannot decide, and the decision is left in the last analysis to the Secretary of State, is the need for a detached and objective view.
In amending the 1944 Act in 1976 the present Government plainly did not think that there was any reason to change the

basic balance between local education authorities and the centre on that question. It was not just a matter of resources and preventing local authorities from spending money contrary to the national economic situation. That matter could be dealt with by the loan sanction arrangements and other means. There was more to it than that.
There is implicit in the 1944 Act a view that local authorities should not have a totally free hand. They must initiate the proposals. The Secretary of State does not have the right, even under the 1976 Act, to initiate the proposals, whether for closure, alterations, or significant changes in character. But in the 1944 Act the decision has been left to the Secretary of State—I can only assume because he is more detached and is able to take a general view of policy, but is less subject to local sensitive pressures.
That scheme was not altered by Labour's 1976 Act. It is significant that in the 1976 Act the Labour Government did alter things other than the arrangements relating to comprehensivation of schools. They took the opportunity to deal with a number of matters where, rightly or wrongly, they felt that change was needed. But this was not one of them.
10.45 p.m.
We are left with a situation where an implicit judgment is involved and where there should be a second and more objective view than may be possible locally. If we examine the Assembly, and especially if we consider perhaps an application to close or change the character of a school in South Wales and envisage that coming before an Assembly that may be dominated by the densely populated area of South Wales, we see that it is not unreal to say that there may not be the detachment and objectivity envisaged by the 1944 Act.
Let us remember that the amendment says that the decision will be taken in the last analysis not by the Secretary of State for Education and Science but by the Secretary of State for Wales. One is not doing anything contrary to the concept of decisions being taken by Welshmen in Wales, but is merely saying that the Assembly may not be capable of detaching itself and providing the necessary objectivity.
It is important to stress that in the first analysis the basic decision will probably be made by the Welsh Assembly, and if this amendment is retained what will be left to the Secretary of State is only a review provision. The Secretary of State should indicate at the outset that in exercising his powers under that provision he would not just casually disregard the view of the Assembly and substitute his own judgment for the Assembly, but as a matter of policy would intervene only if something went seriously wrong in the procedure, or if a basic question of fundamental principle were to arise, as sometimes happens in education matters.
That indication is not in the amendment itself, but as one who supports the Lords amendment I wish to indicate the spirit in which I think that it was meant and in which I hope that it will be implemented if it remains part of the Bill. It seems to be not subversive of the basic scheme of the Government's devolution proposals, because quite a number of other aspects of education are not devolved to the Assembly at all. We are not suggesting that section 13 decisions should not be devolved. They are devolved under the Bill; they will continue to be devolved if this amendment becomes part of the Bill.
We are providing a long stop which I hope will be used not as a substitute for the decision of the Assembly but genuinely as an opportunity to review the matter in those cases where matters have gone badly wrong. In that sense I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: It is fair to record that not since 20 minutes past eight yesterday evening, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) resumed his place, other than an intermittent interruption by Plaid Cymru and the occasional speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), have we heard from anywhere on the Back Benches a friendly word about the Bill. I really begin to wonder where the support comes from.
Normally when a Government are defeated there is some kind of recrimination and comment. They have been absent. We have reached a stage where it has to be recorded that the House of Commons as a whole is without question

hostile to the Bill. It has no stomach for it.

Mr. Alec Jones: This is a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be a Second Reading speech, but we return to the irreducible difficulties of the Bill.
Let us come to this gobbledegook now. Anybody who has had anything to do with education must know that these divisions between something which goes to the Assembly and something which remains reserved are very unreal. We are creating divisions for what? For no better reason than to give this institution something to do. Again, it is window dressing.

Mr. Alec Jones: It is not.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course it is window dressing. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is a realistic man, knows it perfectly well. Any intelligent man looking at page 39 of the Bill knows full well that this is manufacturing differences for the sake of giving these Assemblymen in the Coal Exchange something to do.
I return to the point I made on the Health Service: if there is £10 million, £13 million, or whatever it is to spend, for heaven's sake why not spend it by paying teachers a little more rather than dividing up education administration? We all know of 101 good ways for the expenditure of public money. I repeat that, to spend it on this is to squander taxpayers' money.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: In following the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) again I find myself in substantial agreement with the fundamental points that he made.
The Minister's speech reminded me of when I was a very young and new author. I wrote a biography of Lord Randolph Churchill, which was kindly received by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan. At that time, Mr. Bevan, who was extremely unwell, gave his last press conference. He was asked whether he had read the book and whether he approved of political biography. Mr. Bevan replied "No. I like my fiction neat."
I think that the Minister failed absolutely to deal with the fundamental points in the amendment. He put forward two


arguments which did not appeal to me and, I thought, would not appeal to the House. First, he said that if the amendment were carried, the Secretary of State would be in the position of a court of appeal. That was the point made by the Lords. Secondly, he said that the Secretary of State would be in the invidious position of interfering in education in Wales. That is not the purpose of the amendment. The Minister cannot argue that the Secretary of State would be a court of appeal and that he would be interfering in education in Wales
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the hon. Member for West Lothian pointed out that the devolved powers in themselves are perhaps not all that significant, but they are reasonably significant. All that the Lords are saying and all that we are arguing is that, at the end of the day, in the spirit of the 1944 Act, there should be some facility for the Secretary of State and, as my hon. and learned Friend emphasised, the Secretary of State for Wales to play some part in this procedure.
The Minister said that the amendment was seriously legally defective and capable of amendment. But he gave no indication to the House how that should be done. He did not say why the Government had not proposed certain amendments to make the amendment more relevant and technically correct.
My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the objectivity of the 1944 Act, which is the principle at stake, is included and carried on by the amendment. I cannot understand why the Government, faced with a perfectly reasonable proposal, should produce once again this strictly negative approach.
I am sorry that, temporarily, the Minister of State is not with us. I feel very sorry for him. He has been trundled on with the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill to answer debates which he has not answered and to produce impossible negative answers which he knows are impossible and negative.
I am very glad to see that the Minister of State has come back into the Chamber. His position reminds me very much of when the late Mr. Stewart Alsop, in 1950,

had lunch with the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Churchill. During the course of the lunch, Mr. Alsop was tempted to say to Mr. Churchill that he could not understand why such a great world statesman should be forced so constantly to talk about boring subjects such as sewage, roads, and so on. Mr. Churchill said "It is very easy. I ring up Anthony Eden and I say, 'Anthony, this is your big chance.'"
That is the position in which the Minister of State has been throughout. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales, when anything comes up that will be unpleasant, throughout the devolution Bills ring up the Minister of State and say. "This is your big chance". The Minister of State is then once again produced, trundling forward ridiculous negative answers and not answering the debate. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is now put in exactly the same situation.

Mr. Alec Jones: How can I be accused of that when I have not yet even attempted to answer the debate?

Mr. John Smith: Get out of that.

Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer the Lords amendment. There has been a debate in another place and the Minister knows about that debate. A Lords amendment has been placed. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal with the arguments in that amendment.
The Minister of State is extremely tetchy tonight. Perhaps it is the end of a long Session of defending an unanswerable and abominably drafted Bill and dealing with Lords amendments which are extremely sensible. I am not surprised that the Minister of State is getting very tetchy and worried. But the fact is that arguments are put forward in this amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I am a little surprised that that accusation should come on the one day in all these proceedings on which I have not defended the Government position at any stage. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not know that, because he has not been in any of our debates until now.

Mr. Rhodes James: As the right hon. Member knows, I have, in fact, been


attending most of these sessions. I was in anguish. I am delighted that I have involved the right hon. Member in the debate again, because I was in dismay. The one thing that was missing was the right hon. Member. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State is coming to life, too. It is amazing that the Treasury Bench is suddenly coming into great activity. I am delighted to have contributed to that.
I return to the central point of the Lords amendment. That is that if we are to have these devolved powers, surely the position of the Secretary of State as—in the Under-Secretary's own words—a court of appeal, as the repository of the principle, the objectivity of the 1944 Act, is worth preserving. Why on eath cannot the Government accept that the principle is a good one? Why cannot they accept the amendment? Why cannot the Minister of State answer the arguments made in the amendment?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not know what Sir Winston Churchill said to Anthony Eden. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), I am not all that well acquainted with the quotations from those very eminent persons. However, from my hon. Friend we have had more education than we are likely to get from the Government Front Bench on this very sensible Lords amendment.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britton) said when introducing the argument from the Opposition side of the House, the Government's explanation why they do not accept this Lords amendment is very thin indeed.
Indeed, I believe that the House has seen just how thin it was by the contribution subsequently made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who clearly indicated that far from trying to establish justice, far from trying to establish efficiency, far from trying to make the Assembly and the government of Wales efficient, the Government were, by the division of these responsibilities, going to create complete chaos. He rightly threw a copy of the Bill down on the Bench beside him, indicating that he felt, as many of us feel on this side of the House, that the whole Bill will be very

disadvantageous to Wales and the Welsh people.
11.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby in producing a very sound argument why the Conservative Opposition will support the Lords amendment, clearly established that we believe that education is a serious matter. He highlighted that it is also a matter going to the heart of the people and that there are issues in education about which people feel very strongly.
My hon. Friend talked about the opening of schools and, perhaps more important, the closure of schools. Bearing in mind that the Assembly is likely to be dominated by the urban and industrial belt in the south of Wales, I wonder whether many of those who come from the more rural part of Wales—mid-Wales and north Wales—will be very happy about decisions relating to the closure of schools.
Many of us on this side of the House who also represent rural constituencies know the problems that we and our constituents often face when the county councils in our areas have been moved, for reasons of finance and economy, to close rural schools. I wonder whether the situation will help the Welsh people if the decision is to be made by the Assembly in the last resort and there is no final court of appeal, as it were, to the Secretary of State.
I believe that my hon. Friend presented an eminently reasonable argument. I hope that in reply the Minister will give it rather more attention that he did in his introductory remarks. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was right—there is a wealth of opinion on the amendment in the debates in the other place. It may be that some hon. Members opposite do not like the existence of the other place, but I also believe that the fact that many of its amendments, both to this Bill and to the Scotland Bill, have been accepted by the Government is clear indication that the other place is doing an excellent job. It is trying to improve what is chaotic legislation which will lead to disaster for the United Kingdom and for the people of Scotland and Wales.
Surely it is only right that an area of Wales, that a group of parents in Wales,


that a village in Wales, should have the right of final appeal to the Secretary of State. The Education Act 1944 was a non-partisan measure. It was accepted without acrimony. Unlike the Education Act 1976, passed by the present Government it had all-party agreement. Many safeguards were built into it. Is it not right that the people of Wales should continued to have those safeguards? I believe that it is right that they should.

Mr. Rhodes James: How would my hon. Friend deal with the point made by the Minister when he said that to have have this appeal power would be putting the Secretary of State in the invidious position of interfering in education in Wales? How on earth does this amendment give the Secretary of State the position of interfering in education in Wales, given the devolved powers contained in the Bill?

Mr. Winterton: It does not. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), it merely gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to review the situation in light of all the circumstances. I do not believe that is bad.

Mr. Alec Jones: It seems that tetchiness is catching tonight. If a local authority makes proposals to close or open a school and they are confirmed by the Assembly but overturned by a deccision of a Secretary of State, that must be direct intervention by the Secretary of State in the running of schools in Wales. That is what I meant by intervention.

Mr. Winterton: The Minister has made a good point with that example, but I do not believe that many such cases would occur. The Secretary of State would undoubtedly liaise closely with the Assembly, but the aggrieved party in Wales would feel that the case had received an objective review and consideration.
The Lords amendment is eminently reasonable and the Government should be as reasonable and meet some of the concern felt in Wales, in another place and on this side of the House about the likely effect of the Government's proposals on education. I should like to go further and have no devolution of education

powers. It will be expensive and we shall build up two bureaucracies. The Government exhort us to be more efficient, to cut down on bureaucracy and to reduce government, but there will be a marked division of responsibility in education. Certain functions will be reserved to the Secretary of State and others will be devolved. In all sense, does not the Minister realise that this will create chaos and disillusion in Wales?
I intervene because I am concerned about education. Before becoming an hon. Member I was a county councillor and deputy chairman of an education committee for a number of years. I believe that the Government's proposal will be damaging. The damage would be much less if the Minister would accept the suitable and moderately worded amendment, the objectives of which are very limited. It provides the safeguard that is so important.
If the Government regard the amendment as unfortunate, why did they not change the provisions of the 1944 Act, which included the safeguard that is being removed for the people in Wales, when they introduced the 1976 Act, which affects education throughout England and Wales? In many of the offices he has held, the Minister has shown sympathy, concern and understanding. Surely he will not lose anything by accepting the amendment.
Will the Minister think again and consider the points put forward by this side of the House and by his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? I fear that the relationship that may have built up between the Government Front Bench and the hon. Member for West Lothian may be such that the Minister will not listen to the great sense spoken by the hon. Member not only on this Bill, but in his contribution on the Scotland Bill. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this decision and, even if reluctantly and a little late, announce that the Government will support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is with extreme diffidence that I intervene, because we are short of time and the Minister will want as much as possible to reply to questions. After the searching and able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I know


that he will want to ally the fears expressed about his attitude at the beginning of the date.
My party's manifesto in Wales in 1970 said that we would devolve to the Secretary of State for Wales functions in respect of primary and secondary education. As Secretary of State after the election, I carried through that mandate, despite opposition from the Labour Party. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary was one, but several distinguished members of his party opposed that devolution.
That devolution has now become popular in Wales. I was interested, because I was the first Secretary of State to have that responsibility and I had to take the decisions on section 13 approvals by local education authorities which were in the main politically opposed to me. I think that it will be agreed that those decisions that I took in my four years as Secretary of State were mainly accepted in Wales.
I found how important it was that those decisions should be taken by the Secretary of State. I used to hold the view, which most hon. Members would accept, that the local education authority should judge. Only if the Secretary of State, or whoever is responsible, feels that the authority has gone wrong should he upset the decision, even if it is not wholly in accord with his political view. Occasionally, one could not give approval and has had to suggest modifications—as would be done under the amendment.
I found that that period from the excitement engendered by the decision of the local education authority and the feelings abroad through parents or whomever it might be until eventually the decision was taken by the Secretary of State was a time when feelings were ventilated. But emotions and tempers cooled to a certain extent, and I was able to reach an accommodation which, in the end, generally was right.

11.15 p.m.

Sir David Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a very important statement to the House based upon his own valuable experience. But it would help us to understand what he is saying if he could give us some idea of the extent to which he found himself adjudicating between the education authorities and

people who had raised objections to its scheme. I assume that that happened in 95 per cent. of cases.

Mr. Thomas: I think that percentage is about right, as I would expect from my right hon. and learned Friend. I had to adjudicate on the objections which were raised. I had to review objectively the schemes that were put forward. I found that in the Welsh Office there was built up the Welsh education office. In it were men who had been connected with education in Wales for many years. They had been part of the Ministry of Education for years, but had been remote from it. From the time that Ben Bowen-Thomas was Under-Secretary, he had built up a department remote from the main education office, and there it was; we had a Welsh education office. It was able to function, and it advised the Secretary of State so that he was able to give a decision which generally was acceptable to the people of Wales.
I found no difficulty. I was, after all, a Conservative and the first Conservative Secretary of State in a country where at that time there were very few local authorities which could be considered to be of the same political complexion. I never found any difficulty.
If we are to hand over that power to an Assembly—a political body which will undoubtedly exercise its political muscle and play politics, as we know it will—it will be bad for education in Wales. I believe that a Secretary of State in Wales of whichever party has that objectivity when he has behind him a Department which over the years I grew to admire. That Department can give that assistance and objectivity hoped for from a Secretary of State. I am sure that in certain respects the present Secretary of State is objective, and I have no doubt that he is in education, because it is so important in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the relationship which he is describing and which he suggests will exist between the local authorities and the Assembly is likely to be exacerbated by the inclusion of clause 12, which gives the Assembly the right to review the local authority position?

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is very important. We now have a situation, in view of the vote that we had yesterday, in which the education authorities in Wales will be very concerned about their future. They will also be very wary of an Assembly, if it comes into being.
The Assembly wishes to review local government in Wales, to keep its eye on the local education authorities and to diminish their influence. That is what will happen. For that reason we shall have not a sense of co-operation between the local education authorities in Wales and the Assembly, but a feeling of rivalry. There is no doubt that once a decision is taken by an education authority on whatever matter and it goes up to the Assembly, whatever the Assembly decision may be there will be resentment, or a feeling on the part of the local authority that it is not being dealt with objectively.
What is left? We have the Secretary of State, with his Department behind him. I believe that that is the answer. There will undoubtedly be objectors. There will be deep feelings and concern about any form of education change. The Secretary of State will be the person able to make a proper, objective, review.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that while he had the advantage of having a large Department behind him when he was Secretary of State, when the Assembly comes into being the Secretary of State for Wales will not have that expertise? That expertise will be transferred to the Assembly.

Mr. Thomas: That is absolutely true. The Department will then be advising the Assembly. Instead of advising one man it will be advising the Assembly. The Under-Secretary knows that Ministers get departmental advice and eventually the Secretary of State has to take a decision. How will that be done in the context of an Assembly? Who will take the decision? Will it be a wrangle or a discussion? What happens now is that there might be two or three views in the Department. The Under-Secretary will come along and say "This is my view but I think that I should tell you that so-and-so feels differently. It is a matter for you, as Secretary of State,

to decide". The Minister decides. The Department advising an Assembly can never give the advice that will be sufficient to produce a united view among a conglomerate of people.
What is needed is that the advice which the Department may give to the Assembly—together with the Assembly's decision—should go up to a Minister who also has the advantage of advice from others, so that a decision is taken by the Secretary of State. This is clearly in the interests of those who will undoubtedly object, and object as is anticipated by these amendments. Then it will be found that all the fears and concern that will undoubtedly be expressed by the local education authority and the Assemby—who may be in a position of rivalry—will be allayed if they can take the matter to someone who is the ultimate court of appeal.
It is important that the Under-Secretary should reconsider. He has the Secretary of State sitting beside him. All that he has to do is to turn to his right hon. and learned Friend and say "I am absolutely convinced by what has been said and I think that you should give me the authority to get up and say 'I'm sorry, but the speech I made at the beginning of the debate was a little truncated and I think that I was wrong. I should now like to say on behalf of the Government that I think that the Lords amendment can be accepted for the benefit of education in Wales.'"

Mr. Ioan Evans: If this matter of reviewing education in Wales is to go to the referendum and the people decide that there should be an Assembly, will there not be a period of uncertainty? At the moment education is the responsibility of the counties. The Assembly will be given the power to review local government. The education responsibility cannot be passed on to the districts, because there are too many of them: there cannot be 37 directors of education. A new type of local Government body may emerge from some radical recommendation, involving the abolition of the counties and districts. That will take time to implement.
Is not the problem that while the review is taking place, and after that when the report comes back to the House for it to take a decision on it, education


as a whole will be uncertain about what is to happen? It will not know which is to be the education authority. That will be the position if the Assembly does not take on that function, and if it does there will be not devolution but a concentration of authority in the Assembly to run education in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right. He has expressed the situation in that clear way that one expects from him. I tried to do the same thing, but I did so in my contorted way and was unable to express it clearly. That is the whole point.
I am not sure which way the hon. Gentleman voted last night, but I have long thought that he is apt to vote on the side of the angels. Following what happened last night, there will be this period of tension between the Assembly and the local education authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right. Whatever happens, education will not be put over to the districts unless there are enormous changes in the districts. If the Assembly comes into being, for some time there will be this feeling of rivalry between it and the local education authorities.
What the amendment does is to offer a solution to the tension and misery that undoubtedly will exist. A local education authority may decide to propose a change. There may be protestations and all sorts of feelings of unhappiness about what is happening. It will be no good going to the Assembly and hoping that its decision will solve the difficulty. There must be a higher court of appeal, and I suggest that what is in this amendment is the answer. It is a well-thought-out amendment, and it has been put forward for no reason other than to try to offer those who are concerned, those who submit objections, a certain amount of time, and then the Secretary of State will either give his approval or make modifications to what has been submitted.
I believe that we are all united in our desire to improve education in Wales. We may have slight differences over the form of education that we want for Wales, but, generally speaking, the situation is such that most of us will support something of importance to Wales. For generations education has been thought of as the great equaliser of the condition of man. For that reason one supports

education in Wales. We have a wonderful history of people who have come up from the bottom to the top. The country is full of quarrymen's children and miners' children who have gone to the heights by means of education, which is given support by every family in Wales.
That being so, let us not do anything that might destroy the confidence of people in Wales in education generally. A small contribution can be made tonight by the Under-Secretary taking the strong and sensible view, admitting that he was wrong and saying that he will accept the amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to follow the extraordinary and enthralling peroration of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). I suppose that I could say that we have both come up from the same bottom—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure that that is the right phrase.

Mr. Thomas: —since we both attended the school at Llanrwth. But I was particularly enthralled by his view of the role of the Secretary of State during his period of that office. Maybe he is in the process of writing his memoirs—

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I am not.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Some of his reminiscences tonight had the air of memoir writing as opposed to an accurate recollection of the reality of events.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have known him practically all his life. He is perfectly right that we come from much the same background. We come from the same village. I call on him to recall, because he has a very good memory, one decision on education that I took as Secretary of State and of which he disapproved, or any decision by me that caused enormous controversy among those who support him.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Apart from saying that I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my immediate response to that is that he must have been very attentive to the advice of his officers in the Welsh Office if his decisions were as popular as he apparently recollects.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman sees the Secretary of State as an extremely objective High Court judge in some idealistic federal system, as someone who sits in totally objective analysis of evidence. I am always on my guard when I hear politicians talk of the need for objectivity. That generally indicates an attempt to deny that ultimately all the decisions on public policy are taken on political grounds.
My concern about the Lords amendment and the Conservative support for it is that it is an attempt to maintain a degree of subjective political interference by a future Conservative Secretary of State in the structure of education in Wales. It may be that when the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South was the first Conservative Secretary of State he was more diffident and reluctant and might have been shown not to be the kind of material that would find a place in the Leader of the Opposition's Cabinet, should she ever have a working majority, and not the sort to make radical Right-wing changes in the structure of education.
The history of education in Wales has been one, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman so rightly said, of commitments to egalitarianism, of the early implementation of the comprehensive system, and of the development of a popular-based education system. Naturally, the Assembly will want to develop and maintain policy along those lines.
It seems to me that it is not appropriate at all that the Secretary of State for Wales, in his new post-Assembly function, should be concerned with detailed decisions of education administration. In the new post-Assembly situation, the Welsh Education Office will already have been subsumed into the Welsh Office as a whole. That administration now has responsibility not only for primary and secondary education, as in the days of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South, but for the whole of education in Wales, except for distinguished institutions such as Coleg Harlech, the University of Wales and the Open University. The total educational expertise will therefore be advising the Assembly and will not be present to advise the Secretary of State. Or are we

to have set up, under the Conservative proposals some sort of private education office in the Secretary of State's Department which will take an additional overview when these appeals on closures or on changes of character come to him, the Secretary of State?

Mr. Brittan: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that that argument might carry some weight if the position were that there were no education matters reserved to the Secretary of State? I am afraid that I took too much of the time of the House in reading out pages 39 to 40 of the Bill, but they clearly set out a whole range of functions in education reserved to the Secretary of State, and therefore necessitating the retention within his office of a substantial section able to deal with and advise on education matters.

Mr. Thomas: I take that point, but it appears to me from reading again the list of education functions not to be devolved to the Assembly that there is a qualitative difference between the other non-devolved functions and this in that I believe that this impinges more closely upon the adminitstration of education policy itself as opposed to the safeguarding of the remuneration of teachers and so on, matters in effect settled on a United Kingdom level.
The other issues not being devolved are issues which, within the logic of the Bill and within the logic of maintaining the same levels of remuneration throughout the United Kingdom, can, according to the logic of the Bill, be retained with the Secretary of State. But I believe that when we are talking about the opening and closing and the changing of character of schools, these are education policy decisions which rightly should fall to the Assembly to undertake. The Assembly would play this role within its overall context of policy making where it takes an over-view of the activities of the local education authorities.
Here certainly I have no anxiety, as someone representing a rural area, that we should suddenly have a demand from mid-Glamorgan or from south Glamorgan that there should be a move to close down rural schools. I do not take the hint given by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) when he touched on linguistic policy. I do not have any fear that the Assembly,


in coming to decisions, say, about the opening of further bilingual secondary schools—and decisions such as the one that the Secretary of State took recently in the context of Gwynedd will not be able to take them in the context of a bilingual policy throughout Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that both he and I represent Gwynedd constituencies and that school closures are not unknown in that county and in other rural areas? Is he telling the House that he is prepared to go with the new dispensation and that in the event of the closure of a local school—say, in his constituency or mine—he would not like to have the final right of appeal over the Assembly to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Thomas: I believe that nothing is gained but that rather there is a policy intervention by the Secretary of State, acting with a sort of High Court, federal function which is unnecessary. Gwynedd is now going through the consultation procedures over half-a-dozen schools in my constituency. Having gone through all the local consultation procedures, having gone to the local education committee, having discussed the matter with parents and councils, and then having the issue thrashed out in the context of an all-Wales view about rural policy, which could well be different from the view of a local education authority, all parties affected by the decisions will have been able to air their views. Individuals and groups in Wales will be able to petition the Assembly and influence those decisions and have them made in open debate within the Assembly. I cannot but feel that a decision taken openly by a democratic body is qualitatively as well as quantitatively better than even the excellent decisions that have been taken recently by the Secretary of State on bilingual education.
For those reasons I have no compunction in rejecting the Lords amendments as an attempt by the Conservative Opposition to maintain a vestige of political control by a potential future Conservative Secretary of State under the guise of alleged objectivity.

Sir David Renton: I wonder whether I may intervene briefly to remind the House that the Kilbrandon Commission,

on which Sir Ben Bowen Thomas served—that is, the majority of the Kilbrandon Commission, among which I did not number myself—if anything favours the Lords amendment rather than the Government view on the matter. I shall illustrate that statement by referring to the relevant passages of the report.
First, the Commission said in paragraph 709:
There would…be considerable scope in…education for the devolution of functions of a kind which have been transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
That was in 1973. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) referred to 1970, when it was done.
Then, in paragraph 839, the Commission referred to the problem of drafting. It said, to illustrate that problem, that the law was to be found in section 1 of the Education Act, which
confers on the Minister…the duty 'to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy"—
I stress "national policy"—
'for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.' It is immediately apparent that if regional assemblies were to be given functions in connection with education, this duty would in some way have to be shared between a central government Minister or Ministers and the assemblies.
So far we are all in agreement, but now I come to the crux of the matter as it affects the amendment. That is to be found in the appendix that we compiled, which I have always felt to be very informative and useful, appendix D, headed:
The Scope for Devolution of Departmental Functions".
Under the heading of education, the appendix deals with the general functions, regional and local organisation and then schools. In paragraph 64, in relation to schools, it says:
Devolution would be possible"—
that means devolution from the Secretary of State to an Assembly—
though if it led to the adoption of substantially different policies for the organisation of the schools system, problems would be created for children moving from one region to another".


Speaking more generally, and this is the crux of the matter, it states:
If policy control remained at the centre many of the department's executive functions could be devolved".
Therefore, it was recognised by the majority of the Kilbrandon Commission—I was not among them—that this question of the functions relating to schools was very sensitive, as has been pointed out.
I think that we Conservatives are in some danger of ourselves being inconsistent, because earlier, in relation to the National Health Service, we accused the Government—I did myself—of blowing hot and cold, of devolving with one hand and taking away with the other. But on the narrow point covered by the Lords amendment, and in view of the very powerful evidence given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), we must recognise that especially in Wales—I do not think that this would apply to anything like the same extent in England—where there are strong religious feeling, and a good many religious schools and where we are likely to have a strongly political Assembly—I do not complain about that, because that is the way our democracy works out—and in this especially sensitive area of local disputes arising whether schools should be closed, amalgamated or whatever, it is right that there should be a more impartial ultimate authority.
That is why I believe that the Lords amendment should be retained. It is a great pity that neither in another place nor in this House have we been told why it is technically defective. I do not see that it is.

Mr. David Crouch: As soon as you want me to sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt you will give me the wink, or else it will come from the Treasury Bench or from my colleagues on the Front Bench.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Sit down now.

Mr. Crouch: I shall certainly not sit down now; that is the last thing that I shall do. I am required to go these Lobbies night after night on these devolution Bills, and I feel that I would be

letting down the House, myself, my constituents, the country and the Principality of Wales by not expressing some view on the Bill providing some devolution and self-government to the Principality.
It is on the subject of education that we are perhaps in danger of making a mistake. I am not a learned Member. I have listended with great attention to right hon. and learned Friends who have spoken with great wisdom. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), spoke with conviction from experience. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) spoke with experience, wisdom and conviction from his long study of the whole problem of devolution while serving on the Royal Commission.
I can only say that I still believe that Royal Commissions may come and go but in the end it is this House which produces the greater wisdom or the greater common sense about these things. I have felt for a long time that there is an advantage in devolving education out from the centre, out from Whitehall. I feel that we have an advantage in devolving education from Whitehall to our counties.
I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon South speak of the special advantages accruing to Welsh people from Welsh education. Yet here we have this reactionary advice from another place that we must stop this dispersal from Whitehall to the perimeters of our country. After all, this is dispersal to the Principality of Wales—not an unknown region of Britain, but a clear, recognised and distinct area with a great history.
This was also the case with Scotland. The House knows my views about Scotland. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows my views. He is tolerant of me now; he does not keep interrupting me, because I am not speaking about Scotland—thank God for that.
Even at this late hour and with this limited audience I owe it to the House to say that I still feel from the south-east of England these strange urges to support the views of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who represents a diminutive party in our political spectrum. I agree with everything that he said.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Oh!

Mr. Crouch: That brings gasps from a Member of my own party. The advantage of this place is that even in the late hours of the night, or small hours of the morning, and in the eleventh hour of this Parliament, it is still possible for us to say something before we have to go into the Lobbies.
My point is that on this matter the House of Lords is wrong. The Lords are telling us—in this elected chamber—to be reactionary and do nothing. But do we not understand that Wales is a nation, a Principality, a recognised region? Do we not believe that it can produce a standard of education? Must we always interfere? Must we have a man sitting in Whitehall—albeit a Welshman—in control, under a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, telling Cardiff that we do not approve of its methods and we do not believe that it can manage without our modifications?
I am a simple man and I hope that the Minister will appreciate that it takes a simple man with common sense to realise that we must not limit the opportunities we give to expression and even to control in parts of the United Kingdom. We must give trust we must not take it away.

Mr. Alec Jones: I shall attempt to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate. It has been said that my opening remarks were unusually thin. I do not know whether that was meant to be flattery of my previous remarks, but I shall take it that way.
In opening I made the point about the technical defects of the amendment and my objections on principle. As I have suffered personally from Ministers turning down perfectly good amendments on the grounds of technical defects, I shall deal mainly with the objection in principle.
The noble Lord who introduced the amendment in the other place was advised by the Government that his amendment was defective. He was offered an alternative, but he chose not to accept it. He has again been written to with an explanation why this amendment contains technical deficiencies, which have been drawn to his attention. I shall not make any fuss about that, or

I shall not have time to go into the principle.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister's attitude on this is unsatisfactory. He cannot have it both ways. Either he does not say anything about the technical defect, or he explains it. If he thinks that the technical aspect does not matter, he should not mention it. But he appears to be saying "I shall not tell you about it, but there are fundamental technical objections and if you knew about them it would be enough to put you off." It is tantamount to saying "I have reasons—I cannot tell you what they are—which would frighten you off this amendment." I do not think that is an appropriate way to deal with the House.

Mr. Jones: That is not true. The position is the converse. I am saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman should forget the technical objections so that we may concentrate on the objections in principle. But it was equally right that I should repeat to this House the advice given by the Government in another place namely, that relating to the technical deficiencies.
I return to the objection in principle. The administration of education in this respect is primarily devolved. It is not true, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that the exclusions listed in the Bill are significant, except in respect of salaries and such matters which are centrally negotiated. In the main, the items excluded are the Lord Chancellor's rule-making powers. I do not think that will give the Secretary of State much of a staff to deal with. Then there are employment-related powers, advice to the Crown on the appointment of Her Majesty's inspectors, and powers concerning mandatory student awards. Those are the functions which, in the main, will remain.
We had an excellent speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) giving his point of view but the situation will have changed fundamentally. The Secretary of State will not have the same degree of expertise to advise him which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had when he held that office, because the number of people will be relatively small and in the main, they will concern themselves with remuneration and such matters. If


the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that those who advised him in the past and who will now be advising the Assembly could also at the same time advise the Secretary of State, it seems to me that if they were honest men, as I believe them to be, they would of necessity give the same advice to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State. It is not likely to be different.

Mr. Peter Thomas: All I meant to say was that the Secretary of State would still have the benefit of the advice of the Welsh education office. It will advise the Assembly; the Assembly will have to reach a decision somehow, whether by a majority or whatever it is, and there can be an appeal to the Secretary of State. But the right hon. Gentleman can still ask for the advice of the Welsh education office. There is no difficulty about that at all.

Mr. Jones: The advice that that body would give to the Assembly would be the same as it would give to the Secretary of State. If the same advice is tendered, one normally expects the same outcome.
There is also to be borne in mind the fundamental point that if this House decides to devolve education almost

totally to an elected Assembly in Wales, it is extremely difficult to justify the over-supervising of it by some other body—and that is what it would be. There is not much point in saying that certain things must follow because we have this sort of principle in the 1944 Act. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in the 1944 and 1976 Acts because there was then no Assembly. But post-devolution we shall be operating in a completely different area.

With the Assembly responsible for education in Wales, it should have the responsibility to decide on proposals initiated by local education authorities, particularly when those proposals involve the opening or closing of new schools or seeking to maintain schools. If one did not do that—

It being midnight, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 149.

Division No. 303]
AYES
[12 Midnight


Anderson, Donald
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doig, Peter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon Sydney (Dartford)


Barrett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Bates, Alt
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Judd, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilfedder, James


Canavan, Dennis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kinnock, Neil


Carter, Ray
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Freud, Clement
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Corbett, Robin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ginsberg, David
Litterick, Tom


Cronin, John
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gould, Bryan
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hotter, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Deakins, Eric
Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John
Meacher, Michael




Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Molloy, William
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thompson, George


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tilley, John


Morton, George
Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John


Newens, Stanley
Sedgemore, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Noble, Mike
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkinson, John


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wellbeloved, James


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ovenden, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Woodall, Alec


Pavitt, Laurie
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stoddart, David



Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Radice, Giles
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baker, Kenneth
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt Hon James


Banks, Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bendall, Vivian
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bitten, John
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Biggs-Davison, John
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Blaker, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'd)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Brittan, Leon
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Royle, Sir Anthony


Buck, Antony
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clegg, Walter
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Dunlop, John
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dykes, Hugh
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Emery, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morgan, Geraint
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Forman, Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fox, Marcus
Neave, Airey
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John


Gorst, John
Page, Rt Hon R, Graham (Crosby)
Whitney, Raymond


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Eldon
Pattie, Geoffrey



Grist, Ian
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.

Lords amendment: No. 172, in page 75, line 29, at end insert—

("THE PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) ACT 1960

21B. After paragraph 1(h) of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings)

Act 1960 there shall be inserted"—
(i) the Welsh Assembly"")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 147.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 173 and 188 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill:

In page 84, line 28, at end insert—
'(3) The Welsh Assembly shall publish each report received by it under this paragraph'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment no. 190 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:

In page 85, line 13, leave out `In section 3(1)(e)' and insert
`(1) In subsection (1)(e) of section 3'.

In page 85, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) At the end of subsection (8) of that section there shall be added the words"; and the Welsh Assembly shall publish every report made to it under that provision."'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment no. 191 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill:

In page 85, line 46, after 'of', insert
', and paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to,'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment no. 192 disagreed to.

Schedule 12

REFERENDUM

Lords amendment: No. 196, in page 87, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 10 and insert
("No sum shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund whether by Order in Council under this Schedule or otherwise for the purposes of the referendum, save that an Order in Council")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 137.

Division No. 304]
AYES
[12.13 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Gould, Bryan
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Graham, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Grant, John (Isington C)
Ovenden, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel(Heywood)
Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Bates, Alt
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Bean, R. E.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Havman, Mrs Helene
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Radice, Giles


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rowlands, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Janner, Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Corbett, Robin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian


Cox, Thomas (Testing)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon (N Lanarkshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Killedder, James
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Nell
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lamborn, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
Lee, John
Strang, Gavin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Litterick, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dolg, Peter
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thompson, George


Eadle, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tilley, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Watkinson, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Woodall, Alec


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morrs, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George



Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley
Mr James Tinn and


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Noble, Mike
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Kenneth
Blaker, Peter
Brittan, Leon


Banks, Robert
Body, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Bulmer, Esmond


Biffen, John
Bradford, Rev Robert
Carlisle, Mark




Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhodes James, R.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Loveridge, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCusker, H.
Sainsbury, Tim


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dykes, Hugh
McNalr-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Eyre, Reginalo
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Forman. Nigel
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tebbit, Norman


Gorst, John
Neave, Alrey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Nelson Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)




Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom
Viggers, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Page, Richard (Workington)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Percival, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wells, John


Hurd, Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Whitney, Raymond


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Peter Morrison.

Division No. 305]
AYES
[12.29 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John (Isington C)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Park, George


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie


Bates, Alf
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Prescott, John


Bean, R. E.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Beith, A. J.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Radlce, Giles


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bitten, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Horam, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Huckfleld, Lea
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rowlands, Ted


Conavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sandelson, Neville


Carter, Ray
Irving, Rt Hon Sydney (Dartford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cartwright, John
Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs Rende(Wolv NE)


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Cronin, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Snape, Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyell, Tarn
Killedder James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Arthur
Lambom, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stang, Gavin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Deakins, Eric
Litterick, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Mike (Anertillery)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Newcastle E)


Dormand. J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thompson, George


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tilley, John


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, Gwynlor (Carmarthen)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkinson, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Flannery, Martin
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Woodall, Alec


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wrlgglesworth, Ian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Noble, Mike
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Baker, Kenneth
Dunlop, John
Hunt, David (Wlrral)


Banks, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
James, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'd)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Jopllng, Michael


Blggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kershaw, Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kltson, Sir Timothy


Brains, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Lamont, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Lawrence, Ivan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lawson, Nigel


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
Loverldge, John


Carlisle, Mark
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Luce, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Macfarlane, Nell


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grist, Ian
McNalr-Wllson, M. (Newbury)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
McNalr-Wolfson, P. (New Forest)


Crouch, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Mather, Carol


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray


Drayson, Burnaby
Howell, David (Guildford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony







Miller, Hal (Bitmsgrove)
Raison, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stradllng Thomas, J.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Tapsell, Peter


Morgan, Geraint
Rhodes James, R.
Tebbit, Norman


Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D.


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Alrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, iMchael
Sainsbury, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Mchael (Scarborough)
Walters, Dennis


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (Wokington)
Shepherd, Colin
Weatherili, Bernard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Perclvel, Ian
Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Skeet, T. H. H.



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashtield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Speed, Keith
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 197 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 168 to 171, 174 to 187, 189, 193 to 195 and 198 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Morris, Mr. Jim Marshall. Mr. Pym, Mr. John Smith and Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John Smith.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION)

12.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move.
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June be approved.
This is the second occasion on which this draft order has come before the House and it is therefore not necessary for me to attempt to give a full explanation of all of its provisions, especially as many of its proposals are minor. Instead I shall concentrate on points which hon. Members raised in the previous debate.
Several hon. Members asked about article 3, which deals with committees of boards. The purpose of article 3 is to

allow boards to appoint advisory committees which do not have to be composed entirely of board members. Under existing legislation boards may already appoint committees for any particular field of work, but these must be composed entirely of board members except in the case of teaching appointment committees, which have their own statutory composition and functions. Under the existing legislation, these committees may in turn appoint advisory sub-committees, and the sub-committees may have outsiders appointed to them.
The value of expert advice from people with special knowledge of a particular subject is obvious, and the existing arrangements are intended to permit that. However, the existing arrangements are deficient in one respect: they do not permit a board itself to appoint an advisory committee which would report directly to it rather than to a committee of the board. This can sometimes be inconvenient—for example, if the subject under consideration is one with which a board wishes to deal itself and not delegate to a committee. Article 3 of the draft order simply overcomes this deficiency.
The concept of outside members on advisory committees is by no means new, as this is already part of the 1972 order. All that the new provision would do is to enable a board itself to appoint an advisory committee—something which committees of boards have always been able to do. It is good sense for a board to be able to make the same arrangements for specialist advice as a committee of that board already can.
I would also emphasise that the committees envisaged under article 3 would be purely advisory bodies. Under the present arrangements, board functions can be discharged only by the board itself or by committees which consist entirely of board members. Article 3 would not affect this in any way, and the principle that only board members can take decisions in the name of the board will not be altered in any way.
It was also asked whether outside members of such advisory committees would receive any payment. The answer is that they would not. They would be entitled to have any out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed, but they would not receive any attendance allowance or anything of that sort. Only board members are entitled to any payments of that kind.
Several hon. Members were concerned about article 10, which would enable education and library boards to acquire by compulsion land which is needed for the purposes of both maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools. I fear that there has been some misunderstanding about this provision, and I am glad to have this opportunity to set the record straight.
It may be helpful if I again summarise the scope of article 10. It would enable education and library boards compulsorily to acquire land which is needed for the purposes of maintained schools and most voluntary grammar schools, in much the same way as they can already vest land for their own purposes, if need be. The schools concerned, first, are all maintained schools and, secondly, those voluntary grammar schools that have agreed to have representatives of the Department of Education or the area education and library boards on their governing bodies. It is a long-established principle that the highest level of public assistance is available only to those schools that have public representation on their governing bodies, and the same principle applies, perhaps even more strongly, when it is a question of compulsory purchase powers.
The question was asked in the previous debate why it was felt that such powers were needed in Northern Ireland at this stage when they did not previously exist. One reason the powers are being

sought is that the voluntary school authorities have on occasions experienced great difficulty in obtaining much-needed sites. In Northern Ireland voluntary schools are a major and integral part of the education system, and it is obviously important that land which they legitimately require should be available to them, even if, as a last resort, compulsory purchase powers must be used to obtain it.
I do not think that I can attempt to identify any particular instances where such powers might be required. In fact, I think it would be quite wrong of me to try to speak of any particular school or piece of land. If I were to do so, and if that case did eventually reach the stage where a compulsory purchase order was being sought, it might very well be felt that the case had been prejudged. It is very important that nothing I may say tonight should give the impression that any objections or appeals would not be considered very fully and fairly alongside the needs of the school. In a matter such as this the ultimate decision must be reached with an entitrely open mind, and must be seen to be so.
It may, however, be helpful if I give more details of the type of case where compulsory purchase powers might be appropriate. It can sometimes happen that an existing school is deficient in some respect which can be made good only if more land is obtained. I have in mind that the school may have increased its enrolment and the original site may now be inadequate, or it may perhaps lack playing fields.
If attempts to purchase suitable land prove fruitless, the school might well wish to suggest to the relevant education and library board that compulsory purchase should be considered. I can tell hon. Members that there are voluntary schools in Northern Ireland that find themselves in such circumstances.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carter: Perhaps I may move on a little further so that I can complete the picture.
It can also happen that voluntary school authorities can find it difficult, or even impossible, to purchase a suitable site for a new school. Sites may well


exist, but the owners may be quite unwilling to part with them. These, too, are circumstances in which it might be suggested that it would be appropriate to use compulsory purchase powers. Again I can tell hon. Members that such cases do in fact exist. There are some existing voluntary schools which have been built on inadequate sites, and some nursery schools not built at all, for lack of land. The problem of competing interests is of course intractable, but the possibility of compulsory purchase means at least that a conflict of interest can be put to arbitration and settled impartially.

Mr. McCusker: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. So that we know precisely what we are talking about, will he tell us whether he is talking about voluntary or maintained schools? He present have the power; maintained and "voluntary" as if the matter were unimportant.

Mr. Carter: I am talking about both. The hon. Gentleman probably missed it when I said that. Controlled schools at present have the power, maintained and voluntary schools do not.
I should not wish to give the impression that every case in which compulsory purchase powers are used is contentious. This is not at all the case. It can happen that, irrespective of the land owner's having agreed to part with land for school building purposes, this has been frustrated by a doubtful title to land or some other legal technicality. In these circumstances compulsory purchase may be the only practical solution and will be as welcome to the owner as to the purchaser.
I hope that the explanation I have given will allay any doubts which hon. Members may have felt and that they will understand the reasons why I cannot be any more specific. In giving the examples I have quoted I have also been guided by our experiences with controlled schools, where compulsory purchase powers have of course been available for many years.
I would also point out that similar powers have existed in England and Wales for a long time. This in itself is an indication that the needs of the voluntary school sectors are every bit as deserving of consideration as are the needs of the controlled sector. I think

that it is only reasonable that voluntary schools in Northern Ireland should, in this respect, have broad parity of treatment with their counterparts in England and Wales and with controlled schools in Northern Ireland. This is all that article 10 proposes.
At the same time, I would fully share the view that compulsory purchase powers must be used cautiously and that the rights of the original owner of the land must be fully protected. Under article 10, before land could be compulsorily acquired for a voluntary school both the area board and the Department of Education would have to be satisfied that the land was needed. In the event of any dispute over the proposed compulsory purchase the same statutory procedures would be followed as if the land were being sought by an area board for its own use, including provision for a local inquiry by an independent penson in appropriate cases.
In the event of the land ceasing to be needed by the voluntary school concened, the intention is that the land should revert to the board, which would be responsible for deciding what further use should be made of it. Both the acquisition and the disposal of the land would thus be controlled not by the voluntary school itself but by a public body. Before any such land would be disposed of, the former owner should be given the opportunity to buy it back at its current market value.
During the previous debate on this draft order the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly pointed out that article 10 does not specifically deal with the rights of the former owner to re-purchase the land in the events of its ceasing to be required. As he also pointed out, it is not in fact usual to attempt to make specific provision for this. But it has long been understood that if land which was acquired compulsorily is to be disposed, the former owner of the land should be given an opportunity to re-purchase it if he so wishes. This would certainly apply in a case such as that which we are now considering. This is why article 10 makes it clear that the terms of transfer of the land to the voluntary school authorities may provide for the land to revert to the board if it ceases to be needed by the school. This would enable the board to


ensure that the rights of the former owner were not overlooked.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister referred to surplus land being disposed of when it is no longer required. Does that mean when it is no longer required for education purposes or when it is no longer required for any other purpose, because the Minister will be aware that there is often the practice in such cases of ascertaining whether other Departments of Government have a requirement for the land before it is offered, in the way he has explained, to the former owner?

Mr. Carter: I think that is quite true. In winding up the debate I shall give a more precise answer, but off the top of my head I think that I would be thinking in terms of the spirit in which I have referred to the sort of transactions which would take place, that is, where land is no longer required for education purposes the former owner would be the first to be offered the land.
Finally, I should like to make it clear that there is no question of this particular provision having been introduced quietly or at the last moment. In fact, the reverse is the case. Consultations on the principle of whether vesting powers should be available on behalf of voluntary schools were initiated as long ago as 1975, when a consultative letter was sent to a wide range of education and other interests in Northern Ireland. The great majority of the comments received on the proposal were in principle in favour of compulsory purchase powers being made available.
During the consultative period on the draft order itself, several comments were received on points of detail on article 10. The draft order and a detail explanatory document were, of course, sent in the usual way to every Northern Ireland Member of Parliament on 17th January 1978. No individual or body which commented on the draft said that he was opposed in principle to the idea of compulsory purchase powers being made available—nobody.

Mr. William Craig: rose—

Mr. Carter: I hope that the explanation I have given of the provisions of

article 10, of the reasons why it is needed and of the way in which it will be used, will have allayed any doubts that hon. Members may have had.

Mr. Craig: Are Members of Parliament required to tell Ministers by correspondence that they object, rather than use their position in the House of Commons to register their objection? It is entirely against British constitutional procedures that Ministers write and say to us that we must say "Yes" or "No" to their correspondence.

Mr. Carter: That is not true in Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not true in the United Kingdom. White Papers and drafts are issued on all manner of things and it is quite common for Members of Parliament, in Northern Ireland. Great Britain or United Kingdom matters, to make comments before legislation is finally made known. Indeed, on this issue the right hon. Gentleman and every hon. Member from Northern Ireland had four, five, six months in which to make their comments known before legislation was brought forward.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the first document was issued way back in 17975, the Northern Ireland Office received a communication from my party opposing it.

Mr. Carter: I have to take the hon. Gentleman's word for that, but he certainly did not reiterate it when the draft proposal was issued on 17th January this year. He remained strangely quiet from 17th January onwards. If the hon. Gentleman felt that strongly about it, that was the time to make his objection known.
I have spent a considerable time on this particular provision of the draft order because it is one which attracted most attention during the earlier debate. If there are any other points which hon. Members wish to have clarified, I shall be very happy to seek to clarify them.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The failure of the Government to secure approval for this order on 20th June had led us on this side of the House to examine it again in much closer detail and consider what we believe to be its real purposes.
It may be just as well that the Minister has had to reintroduce the order, since that will enable us to ask more questions. We shall wait to see what the Minister says in reply. I was not present at the last debate on 20th June, but I note what the Minister said on that occasion:
We do not see this order as being in any way controversial we are doing nothing more than establishing equity between the voluntary and State sectors."—[Official Report, 20th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 425.]
That is father too modest a description of this order. It give considerable additional powers to the boards over the voluntary schools in particular. This is clear from the explanatory memorandum.
We bear in mind the declared aim of the Conservative Party to bring these boards under democratic control in future, if we get that opportunity. Therefore, we bear in mind the question of local government powers in particular.
We should also look at the background against which this order is being introduced. As I said in the debate on the No. 2 appropriation order on 7th July,
The Government appear to be determined to impose a uniform system of comprehensive secondary education on the province of Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 7th July, 1978; Vol 953, c. 875.]
They have refused to reconsider the policy on which they embarked in 1976, and no one has denied that on their behalf in any of the debates in the last few months.
Since the first debate on this order on 20th June my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davidson) have spoken to Ulster parents in Belfast and have stated the Conservative position there. When I spoke about this on 7th July, I referred to the 57 voluntary schools—the grammar schools—and their opposition to Lord Melchett's proposals. I said then that a Conservative Government would not exercise any compulsion or browbeating on either the boards or the voluntary schools. I asked the Government to reconsider the whole position in view of the unpopularity of these proposals in the Province. I believe this to be the context in which we are debating this order.
Vigorous opposition is growing in Northern Ireland, from both sides of the

community as the Minister well knows. The Government have seriously misjudged the state of feeling in the Province. Some of the articles in the order appear innocuous but others could be designed to facilitate the introduction of comprehensive education without the need for further legislation.
Some of the articles are not controversial, but others are extremely important. I instance article 3, which the Minister has described, where the area education boards may appoint committees for various purposes such as teaching appointments or reorganisation proposals. The hon. Member said that under the 1972 order all members of such committees must be board members. Under this article the board may appoint non-board members to the committees. What he did not explain was why that will be necessary. It could be a simple administrative improvement, as he suggested.
However, when one looks at these articles with a slightly suspicious eye, bearing in mind the Government's declared intention and policy in Northern Ireland on reorganisation, the article could be used to introduce people who are not board members to committees in order to influence area boards towards reorganisation. This may well be the case. The article could be used to appoint only those in favour of the Government's plan. The more I examine its implications, the more cautious I become of the exact purpose of this supposedly non-controversial order.
Article 5 is a major amendment. It amends several articles in the 1972 order and introduces an important new one. Its effect is to change the present procedure whereby an area board may only change the nature of or close schools within an overall development plan. Now, under the new order, it may open, close, or change individual schools not as part of an overall plan, but on a school-by-school basis. I believe this to be very important.
This is a procedure laid down for changing schools similar to that used in England and Wales, publication of notices, and so forth, and approval by the Minister. But article 5 provides that where a school has ceased to be maintained, whether by choice of the governors or by the action of the Government


—and that is the operative word—the school will pay to the Government such money as the Government demand as the refund of public money spent on the school.
Previously, under the 1972 order, such repayment was only where the school chose to opt out. Now it could occur when it is closed or changed by action of the board under a new article, article 11. It is a different situation and is not a non-controversial position. It makes is very much simpler for the Government to force comprehensive change school by school and it affords a sanction by repayment of funds for those unwilling to oblige the Government by going comprehensive.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: It throws up the weakness in the argument of so many Opposition Members when the hon. Gentleman speaks of forcing comprehensive change school by school. Does he not realise that, by definition, there is no such thing as change of secondary education towards a comprehensive system school by school? It is the system for the area that is comprehensive and not the individual school. I hope that at long last we can get that into the head of the Opposition.

Mr. Neave: That is not the position under this order. It could be done school by school, and we should like to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. I do not find the hon. Gentleman's intervention very relevant. Article 5 could be essential to the Government's reorganisation plans. That is its purpose.
Article 6 changes the rules for awarding scholarships and also controls the award of places at non-maintained schools. What does that mean? Does it mean that it could be used to prevent free places at any remaining grammar schools? That is a relevant question and the Minister should say whether the provision applies to remaining grammar schools.
The Minister properly gave a full account of article 10, which is an important provision. It extends the compulsory purchase power which the boards already have for the controlled schools to voluntary grammar schools. They have that power under article 95 of the

1972 order. Such compulsory purchase of adjacent land would be for playing fields or for extending school premises.
It is interesting that the article refers to the voluntary grammar schools as if the Government wanted to help the grammar schools. I do not know whether that is the purpose. Is that what it means? For example, if such an operation were to expand a grammar school, could it be in preparation for a change to its becoming a comprehensive school? That might well be the purpose of this article.
In exchange for the compulsory purchase order, the area board, it appears, takes places on the school's governing body. It is important that the Voluntary Schools Association in Northern Ireland has specifically rejected this article. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister to give a full explanation of that. If one reads the explanatory note, it sounds a great deal more innocuous. It simply refers to power to put people on the boards. But I do not believe the position to be as innocuous as that note suggests.
Article 11 is complex. It is concerned with building grants to voluntary schools but, more importantly, with the repayment of such grants should the school cease to be maintained. It ties in, as the Minister said, with article 5. If a voluntary school of its own free will chooses to revert to independent status, one could argue that the article might be reasonable for the school to pay back public money spent on the school. I accept that position.
But suppose the school is in difficulties and does not agree with the area board; what happens if it has a pistol at its head and it is told to reorganise as a comprehensive or go independent? If it goes independent, it must pay back all the money that has been spent on the school. The practical fact is a Hobson's choice: it must go comprehensive. To make it worse, the article asks for repayment at today's prices.
Instead of saying that it is a joke, as I heard him say just now, the hon. Gentleman should realise that it is not a joke. There is very strong opposition to that provision throughout the Province. It is not a joke at all, and it was foolish of him to say as loudly as he did that it was. I do not think that parents in Northern Ireland will consider that to be


the position. I have no comments to make on the other articles.

Mr. Robert Mellish: On 20th June, when the debate was adjourned, the hon. Gentleman, like me, was not present. He has admitted that and I admit it. Looking at the debate, we see that the arguments were adduced not by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I exclude him from this—but by the hon. Members for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). Their arguments were based entirely on the religious argument. They based their argument solely and simply on a detestation, which they have every right to have, of the Roman Catholic faith.

Mr. James Kilfedder: No.

Mr. Mellish: I have the report of the debate here: one has only to read it. Anyway, I am asking the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) about this matter, because I want the Tory Party's view. The hon. Gentleman has every right to argue about comprehensive education and so on. That is understandable. That is a fair political point. I am now asking a straight question and may we have a straight answer from the Tory Front Bench? Do the Tory Opposition agree with the arguments adduced by those two Ulster Members? The right hon. Member for Down, South is not involved. If the hon. Member for Abingdon says "No", will he say so openly so that we may know that he is not trying to waffle his way through on an argument about comprehensive education and the rest? Will he say whether he agrees with those hon. Members? If he does agree, will he have a chat with his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), because we should like his views?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make a speech later.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for a right hon. Member to stand up in this House and to say that in a speech that I made in this place there was detestation of any faith when the only mention that I made in that speech was:

It should be made clear that the majority of the schools we are dealing with are Roman Catholic voluntary schools.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have their own views. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us get it straight. The hon. Gentleman has a right to challenge me if I say something that he did not say in a speech. That is a very fair point of order. But may I point out and get on the record that in column 419—hope that the Tory Front Bench is listening—the hon. Member for Antrim, North is reported as having said:
A major religious issue is involved which we, as a House, need to face. I find it very disturbing that this matter has been almost skated over."—[Official Report, 20th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 418–19.]
Is that not clear? Everyone knows the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I am asking the Tory Front Bench to get up and say how the Opposition really feel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very long intervention.

Mr. Neave: The right hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinarily long intervention.

Mr. Mellish: But it was a good one.

Mr. Neave: It is not for me to talk about the religions aspects of the matter. It is for those hon. Members from Northern Ireland to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred to speak for themselves. I am analysing these articles in the order on behalf of the Conservative Party, and I have done so. The religious matters raised by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will no doubt be dealt with by the hon. Members concerned.
In view of the activities of Lord Melchett over the past two years, I want to know what the Government's real motives are. We shall await the Minister's comments with some anxiety as a result of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Neave: I have resumed my seat.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman say quite clearly whether he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has stated from the Opposition Front Bench that he has resumed his seat. I call the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker).

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot exhort the Front Bench to rise again if the hon. Gentleman has sat down. Mr. McCusker.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: As the Minister well knows—

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) call my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) a coward. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard no such remark. If the remark was made, the Chair did not hear it. I am sure that if it was made, it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Mellish: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been a Member of the House for a long time. I simply said out loud, and obviously it was heard, that I thought that Members of the Conservative Front Bench would have the courage and decency to dissociate themselves from what was, I thought, a religious argument, because if they did not do so they would be cowards and humbugs. I did say that, but if that is incorrect or not the right thing to say, I humbly withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is incorrect, because both the words are unparliamentary. Mr. McCusker.

Mr. McCusker: As the Minister well knows—and he has referred to it earlier—the one reservation that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have about the order is article 10. I do not run away from that argument. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches should remember the conflict which exists in

Northern Ireland between these two groupings and the irritation and the friction which can easily come about, which this House should not try to ignore. They do not ignore it when it suits their purpose. When they try to argue the special case for Northern Ireland and proportional representation for Europe for Northern Ireland, they do not run away from the difficulty of facing up to the real problems as they see them that exist there. Therefore, when I touch upon the real problem, the religious difficulties and the frictions which they bring about, I make no apology for that.
The Minister knows that we faced up to this in February when we wrote on 21st February to hise noble Friend saying that we had reservations about article 10. We pointed out our concern and we tried to say that historically this was a matter which was likely to bring about controversy in Northern Ireland, and we asked for reassurances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), quite properly, raised aspects of this matter in the debate on 20th June.
The assurances which we received at the time from the noble Lord dealt mainly with an explanation of the appeals procedure against the vesting. Apart from a bare comment that compulsory purchase powers should be used with caution, he said very little about what we consider to be a very sensitive issue, and certainly gave no indication that either he or his Department were taking the attitude towards it that we think should be taken.
Article 10 deals with the compulsory acquisition of land for purposes of maintained schools or voluntary grammar schools. I did not mishear the hon. Gentleman when I asked him whether he was speaking about voluntary schools or maintained schools. Throughout his speech on this occasion, and in the past, he talked about voluntary schools.
What is the situation? On inquiry since 20th June—and I regret that this information was not made available to Northern Ireland Members well prior to 20th June—one discovers that the voluntary schools referred to in article 10, the voluntary grammar schools, do not want these powers. They have expressed the view very forcefully to the Minister that the desire for these powers did not originate with them. The Minister has in


his possession a letter dated 10th March 1978 in which the Association of Voluntary Grammar Schools stated:
We wish it to be understood that it is not we who are pressing for this new power.
That association of governing bodies of voluntary grammar schools covers voluntary grammar schools controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and various Churches within the Protestant demonations.
Therefore, in terms of article 10, we are not dealing with the voluntary schools. The voluntary grammar schools covered by the article do not want these powers. They have put that in writing. When a deputation from the association of those voluntary grammer schools went to the Department of Education, its members were told that this was "not a live issue" for voluntary grammar schools. They are left wondering why they have been included. They were also told that the article really refers to maintained primary schools.
In a letter written to me by one of its officers, the association states:
We are very well aware of the dangers inherent in the compulsory acquisition of land and cannot imagine any of our 57 school choosing to run headlong into such troubles.
So the issue tonight is maintained primary schools.
If that is so, why did the Minister make his remarkable statement on 20th June and some of the comments he has made tonight? On 20th June he said:
The voluntary school sector in Northern Ireland is a very important one, and it is obviously undesirable that a voluntary school's legitimate requirements can be frustrated by an inability to acquire land."—[Official Report, 20th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 414.]
Does the hon. Gentleman not know that there is a difference between voluntary schools and maintained schools? Does he not know that the voluntary grammar schools do not want this power? Or is he deliberately considering maintained primary schools to be in reality voluntary primary schools? If he is doing that—and we have to consider that he is doing so deliberately, because he was reading a prepared brief—we might as well dispense with the charade of the maintained schools and refer to them all as voluntary primary schools.
I am trying to choose my words carefully. I am sure that any fair-minded

person in this House or in Northern Ireland would say that if there is any primary school in Northern Ireland that is suffering from gross overcrowding and all the attendant problems and where every reasonable attempt has been made by negotiation to acquire essential land to provide extra classrooms, or perhaps an extension of canteen facilities or toilet facilities, no one would stand in the way of that school acquiring that land for such purposes.
We were told at the beginning of the week that the birth rate in Northern Ireland last year was the lowest in the history of the Province. It has dropped consistently over the past 15 years. The primary schools have no "bulge" of children going through them. The area education boards tell us that enrolments in primary schools in both the State sector and the voluntary maintained sector are down. Enrolments in all types of primary school are going down. Except in areas like West Belfast—and not even in every part of West Belfast, because it would not apply to Shankill Road or Sandy Row, for example—there is over-provision of primary school places. We are facing redundancy and unemployment among primary school teachers; there has been a cut back in the number of training places for teachers in primary schools. So we have to ask ourselves what many people are asking—what is this power required for now?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, against the background that he has stated, that, nevertheless, there are instances, and I can think of some in my constituency, where, as a result of local movements, although the total enrolments in an area are down, there is an increased pressure on an individual school. That can happen consistently with a fall in total enrolments.

Mr. McCusker: I hope that I covered that when I said that if there are places where pressure has built up, no one would want to deny that community the opportunity of essential extensions.

Mr. Clement Freud: If the hon. Gentleman feels that no one would stand in the way of essential acquisition and article 10 deals with nothing more than that, why is he objecting to it?

Mr. McCusker: What is this power required for? Is it to obtain essential ground for building the sort of extensions that I have described, or is it to enable schools and other bodies to go empire building? Is it to enable voluntary schools and others to acquire playing fields, perhaps not adjacent to the schools, but some way from the schools?
If we were talking about grammar and other secondary schools, which have a massive requirement for recreational space, I could understand the argument, but I taught in primary schools in Northern Ireland and I could name many State primary schools that will never have playing fields because the State has decided that they cannot be afforded. Are there to be State schools without playing fields while the State tells voluntary schools that they can have the power to wrest land from unwilling sellers? Those are the questions that must be asked. They are the questions with which we have to live in our constituencies.
Are we or are we not talking about essential building? If we are, I want the Minister to tell me so. I come from an area of Craigavon where compulsory purchase sterilised 6,000 acres of prime agricultural land. I represent an agricultural constituency. Will the powers in the order be used to sterilise more good agricultural land? Will land be taken for a playing field that will be used by a primary school for perhaps one hour a week? That is what is feared in Northern Ireland. If the Minister can assure us that the power is for essential purposes and that no one will have his birthright taken from him for no good reason, I shall be reassured.
I do not accept the parity arguments—parity between the State and the Church in Northern Ireland or between here and Northern Ireland. Labour Members do not use the parity argument on other occasions. They say that there must be power sharing in Northern Ireland because we are different. Do not let them come to me and say that we must have parity in this area. When they give us parity on everything, they can use the parity argument on this order. I believe that the State should have a right to purchase compulsorily, but I do not believe that the right should be given to schools, whether they are Presbyterian,

Church of Ireland, Roman Catholic, or otherwise.
I cannot understand all the details of some of the other provisions of the order, but there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that parts of the order will be used to further the Government's intention to force comprehensive education on the Province. In defence of the Government, it must be said that they have claimed consistently in the House that it is not their intention to coerce the people of Northern Ireland. If that is so, may we also have an assurance that there is nothing in the order that will be used to coerce them?

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Unlike the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) made a refreshingly honest speech. His only objection is to article 10, because it may benefit Roman Catholic schools.

Mr. McCusker: Nonsense.

Mr. Fitt: On 20th June, the hon, Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said:
I do not know why, at this late hour, vesting powers will be given to these voluntary schools. Why is it that we are able to carry on for so long without such powers and then suddenly we are to have powers? In certain areas there would be great opposition to the expansion of certain of these schools.
Those words could have a sinister connotation.
We need to face that fact tonight. There is no use our talking only about voluntary schools. A major religious issue is involved which we, as a House, need to face."— [Official Report, 20th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 419.]
All 10 Unionist Members here tonight will vote against the order because they do not want a change made in the law which would prevent the building or extension of Roman Catholic schools.
The hon. Member for Armagh castigates the Labour Party for introducing proportional representation for the European elections. The Labour Party has nothing to apologise for. The Unionists used the same argument about the Employment Protection Act—that there was no religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Yet we in Northern Ireland know the attitude taken against Roman Catholic schools, the Roman Catholic


minority and the Roman Catholic religion since the inception of the Northern Ireland State.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House. I am sure that he has not read my speech, but if he did he would see that I oppose the whole idea of sectarian education. I am all for the abolition of schools connected with religion or under the aegis of Churches. I have always taken that stand since I have been in the House.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that qualification. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman is not accepted as a fully-fledged Unionist and is often out in the cold.

Mr. Craig: The hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House. I will not make the same point as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), since I respect the right of conscience in these matters. The majority of voluntary schools are Protestant. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss this as a Protestant-Catholic argument. He should keep the sectarian issue out of the debate, because it is not strictly relevant.

Mr. Fitt: There are 18 articles and two schedules in the order, and the hon. Member for Armagh, who led for the Unionist Party, made it clear that the Unionists were terribly worried about article 10, although they would accept the two schedules. Let us not mince words: the opposition to the order and the reason that it did not pass before are based on article 10.
The Minister said that he knew of instances where the Catholic authorities in Northern Ireland had been refused or had found themselves unable to acquire land for educational purposes because of a provision written into a will 100 or 200 years ago. I know of a case in North Belfast where the Roman Catholic authorities have tried to acquire a school but legally are prevented from doing so because of conditions laid down in a will that in no circumstances should the land ever be bought by a Roman Catholic. This is the reason why there is such opposition to the order from Northern Ireland Unionist Members.
I believe the order to be essential. I also support the arguments for comprehensive schools. We can accept the

attitude of Northern Ireland Unionists. We can even accept their bigotry, because we know what motivates them. But we cannot accept the attitude of the hon. Member for Abingdon, who does not have the courage to say that he is trying to play the Orange card on this issue, as he and his Leader have been doing in recent months, because they believe that the Unionist vote from Northern Ireland may be necessary if a certain event occurs in the near future.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, let the Tory Opposition say honestly why they oppose the order. It is to gain the votes of Northern Ireland Unionists.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because it enables me to explain what is not clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is that the criticism made from the official Opposition Front Bench of article 10 arises because the extension of the compulsory purchase power to voluntary grammar schools might, in our opinion, be used to expand a grammar school in preparation for changing it to a comprehensive school.

Mr. Mellish: That is an insult to our intelligence.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the Minister can remove this apprehension—this fear—from our minds, no one will be happier than I. But that is the criticism that we make. That is the possible interpretation. We see in article 10 a possible threat to voluntary grammar schools—Catholic as well as the other kind.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) saying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is becoming slightly unruly.

Mr. Fitt: In view of the proposal before us, I am certainly prepared to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that it has occurred to my hon. Friend to ask the hon. Member for Epping Forest to say whether the Opposition are in favour of compulsory purchase for voluntary and maintained schools on a parity with


other schools in the Province. That is the simple question. It is not a fear of comprehensive education. Do the Opposition accept the principle of compulsory purchase?

Mr. Fitt: I am glad that my hon. Friend has intervened. He has posed certain questions which I believe are directed at the Opposition Front Bench, not at Unionist Members. The attempt to absolve the Conservative Opposition of any bias on this issue has failed. I understand that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) may have some connection with voluntary schools in Northern Ireland. If that is so, he has certainly failed to show his concern tonight. When the votes are counted here tonight, the Conservative Opposition should show us where they stand. If they go into the Lobby with Northern Ireland Members, the electorate in Northern Ireland will be under no illusions what their intentions are.

1.40 a.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I shall be brief so that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) can take part in this debate, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate would not be taking place but for the fact that the hon. Member and I were the only two hon. Members to challenge the order. It is surprising that the Chamber is packed tonight. We have had a strong speech from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), but there was silence on 20th June when we were informed by one of the Whips that the Unionist group had agreed that the order would go through on the nod. The order was put in at the end of a series of Northern Ireland orders so that it would pass unnoticed through the House. I would like some credit, some praise from Labour Members. Instead there has been arrogance and ignorance.
I am proud to be identified with Ulster when I hear such nonsense from the Labour Benches. I do not accept what the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks when he castigated hon. Members for not making representations to him when a letter about the draft order was sent to them. There is no power to amend a draft order. Northern Ireland is in a second class position within the

United Kingdom, under a type of colonial direct rule.
I cannot be party to this present procedure whereby an hon. Member is supposed to make representation and to act as an adviser to an Under-Secretary or any other Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. The more the Under-Secretary complains about what is happening—about the fact, for example, that we challenged this order and made sure that it did not get through on 20th June—the more pleasure I get, because I hope that the day will soon come when we can bring this scandalous system of government of Northern Ireland to an end. Then, perhaps, the Under-Secretary will be able to go back to his constituents and look after them. The people of Northern Ireland are not being properly looked after at the moment. Since the order failed to be approved on 20th June because there were fewer than 40 Members taking part in the Division. On the last time out—to use a racing phrase. permissible. as I think the Secretary of State is obviously playing an irresponsible game with Ulster's education—I have made inquiries among members of the education and library boards. In no case was their intent specifically drawn to the real intention and purpose of article 10. When it was mentioned at all in the meetings of the education boards it was always put to member that a voluntary grammar school might need to take over adjoining land or property for expansion but that the power would be exercised only rarely. However, care was taken not to mention that the main purpose of the article was to facilitate the furtherance of sectarian education by enabling maintained schools—not just voluntary grammar schools which do not wish to have this power—to expand by getting the Department of Education to vest adjoining property by compulsory purchase against the wishes of the owner of the land or property.
In educational matters—I interrupted the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to emphasise the point; I did not bother to interrupt the former Chief Whip of the Labour Party because it was pointless to do so—I have always been a staunch advocate of ending religious apartheid between schools. Surely we can have religious neutrality to allow boys and girls from the earliest possible


age, including nursery school age, to be educated together and to grow up together. I deplored the decision of the former Conservative Administration to encourage the development of sectarian-based nursery schools—a policy which I regret to say the present Secretary of State has done nothing to change, and a good deal to support. I am totally opposed to sectarianism in education. I want to see youngsters growing up together. I wish to goodness that those hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches who are so voluble in this House would seek to end sectarian education in Northern Ireland. That would help. That would be the great leap forward. Instead of that we hear nothing but words of prejudice which the hon. Gentleman is all too able to offer this House.
The great drawback to the recent Act on integrated schools in Northern Ireland is that its provisions deliberately accept that both religions should be involved in the management of such schools. That is the recent measure that started in the House of Lords. I want to see a religiously neutral system without formal Church representation but with access by the clergy to the schools for the purpose of religious instruction of a voluntary nature.
I do not think that this order will help the situation. I fear that article 10 is an abject surrender to those reactionary forces who are intent on the maintenance of sectarian education in Northern Ireland and for whom no political trick is too base or too low to be employed in the cause of separate denominational schools. If it is true, as the Minister alleged, that some denominational schools are having difficulty in acquiring adjoining property for expansion, the courageous course, the prudent course, the decent course, the radical and right course is to tell them that they will have to do the best they can with their own resources, but not to rely upon the State compulsorily to vest land on their behalf. Of course these schools will seek more land and more property, because the money is to come not out of their pockets but out of the pockets of the taxpayer. Therefore, there is no restriction on their ambitions to expand.
The Under-Secretary of State has given the impression that the power of vesting

land against the wishes of the owner of that land will seldom be exercised. How does he know that the power will be exercised so rarely? Once power is given the floodgates will be opened. I look at what the Minister said during the debate on 20th June. His words clearly contained a threat. He said:
it is obviously undesirable that a voluntary school's legitimate requirements can be frustrated by an inability to acquire land."—[Official Report, 20th June 1978: Vol. 952, c. 414.]
In my opinion, those words have an ominous ring. They have the ring of the worlds of another little dictator who was making allegedly justifiable demands in Europe in 1938 and 1939. "A school's legitimate requirements can be frustrated", and therefore they must have this power.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's stance against sectarian education. It is a viewpoint which I hold and have done for a very long time. But does he not realise that his stance in the context of his voting in the way that he is about to vote, I believe—

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes.

Mr. Flannery: —is bound to be construed, in the present situation in Northern Ireland, as being that of a bigoted majority community against a minority community? By no stretch of the imagination can it be construed as the nonsectarian approach that he claims. Does he realise that the Tory Party is here playing the card, bedevilling the issue without any integrity of thought, in order to play up to the Ulster Unionists, thereby intensifying and deepening the terrible circumstances of Northern Ireland? Does he not concede, as one who is honest and believes in non-sectarian education, that he should think over what I have said?

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to explain the history of education in Ireland. In the debate last month I made the important point that at no time since the inception of the national system of education in Ireland in 1832 had any Government agreed to the compulsory acquisition of land for the benefit of a religious organisation. The right to purchase, land compulsorily has never been extended to a non-State school, body or


institution in Northern or Southern Ireland. I want that position maintained.
After so many decades and administrations, good and bad, in Ireland this pernicious law is now being introduced. I ask Labour Members many of whom can be most reasonable, to reconsider their position and to join us in voting against the compulsory acquisition of land, which will only add to the trouble in Northern Ireland. Article 10 may introduce the sort of hatred and controversy of which we in Northern Ireland have had enough.
The Under-Secretary said that if appropriate a local inquiry can be appointed. Let me quote a case from my constituency. Where a public inquiry was granted. The Lesnevin training school was set up against the wishes of the local people in Newtownards. The Government official pledged to the inspector who conducted the inquiry that the school would be there for only three years and be closed by 1976. In 1977 the Government officials applied to make that school permanent. That is the value of a public inquiry, and of a pledge from the Government.
I ask the House to reject the order.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: This has been a very sad debate because it causes one to wonder what various Governments have tired to do since 1968. It is sad, too, because all the old sores have reappeared, starting with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), and continuing with the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker).
The debate should show the Conservatives the danger and the folly of their proposals to return powers to local government, particularly if those powers should include education. We see the difficulties that could and would arise. It should also be a salutary lesson to my hon. Friends the Ministers as to the prospects of increasing the number of parliamentary B Specials with the possibility of increasing the number of seats in Northern Ireland, because the difficulties of the past are not being overcome. They are being resurrected in the

most basic way. The attitude is "what we have we hold. We will not have Catholic children playing on Protestant land"—or Methodist children playing on Catholic land, or Protestant children playing on Catholic land. That is the basis of the argument.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: rose—

Mr. McNamara: The attitude is "If it is a toilet or an extra class room or something of that nature, that is fine, but we cannot have playing fields, we cannot have anything which might affect the basic position of land holding." I understand that, because I am part of that same tradition myself. The hon. Member for Armagh agrees with me. He understands the point that I am making. He made it himself. What I am suggesting is that we have a very long way to go still on this matter—

Mr. Bradford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not interrupt him three weeks ago. I hope that he will not interrupt me now.

Mr. Bradford: It was the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend who interrupted me then.

Mr. McNamara: When the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) made his point about article 10—I do not know whether he will be with us for the rest of the evening—he used the most specious of arguments to try to get round this problem.

Mr. Bradford: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on integrated education?

Mr. McNamara: He said that they could support the Ulster Unionists by using the anti-comprehensive argument. Out of the wording of these articles, the Conservatives have conjured up ideas, impressions and meanings which are just not there. Somehow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was mean, base, tricky—some sort of deceitful scamp. I ask hon. Members to look at my hon. Friend. He is clearly none of those things. Is Lord Melchett—the playboy of the Six Counties—any of those things? Certainly not! Can he in any way be considered in that sort of context?
The purpose of the order is simply to provide a bit of equity. The hon. Member for Armagh understands the problem as I understand it. Surely we can come together on this issue of the educational facilities, the play facilities, of our children, Catholic or Protestant, maintained or voluntary, so that they may have what is needed. I have always admired the logic of the hon. Member, while frequently not agreeing with his premises. When he reads his speech, I ask him to think out what he said about the position of the schools in which he taught. They did not have these facilities. I put it to him that the power existed to get those facilities, whether that power was used or not. It could have been done under the power of the area boards, which is all that article 10 is offering. Surely, if we are to get over the past, we should give that same power to the voluntary and maintained schools.

1.59 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to be regretted that tonight the ceiling on time was not lifted and an opportunity given to hon. Members from Northern Ireland and other hon. Members to discuss the draft order thoroughly. I told the Whips "This is a matter not to be put under the carpet but to be fully ventilated". I know that the Minister has to reply to the debate, and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland no doubt want to make known their stand after what has been said. It is an ill service to the people of Northern Ireland and to this House that it is not prepared to discuss issues.
I raised the issue in our last debate, and the former Chief Whip of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has now left us, said that my speech and that of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) were filled with detestation of the Roman Catholic faith. I challenge him to show me any criticism of the Roman Catholic faith in either speech. We are dealing with an issue, and the issue is in regard to maintained schools, which are Roman Catholic schools.
A Labour Back Bencher said that one could not bring in comprehensive education school by school. He was only showing his own ignorance of what is happening, for that is exactly what is

happening in Northern Ireland. It is board by board that the attempt is being made to bring in comprehensive education, and school by school, because certain schools in the boards have refused They happen to be voluntary grammar schools.
Let it be made clear that there are two types of education in Northern Ireland. There is State education, and there are maintained schools, which are Roman Catholic schools. There may be one or two Protestant maintained schools left in the primary sector, but there are not very many.
We are dealing tonight with two propositions—voluntary grammar schools, the majority of which are Protestant, and maintained schools, the vast majority of which are Roman Catholic. But the voluntary grammar schools have said that they do not want what is proposed. I want to know why they are linked with the other schools in the proposals before us. If they did not want it, why were they not left out? I know the reason. It is that the Government wanted to argue that they were giving this to all schools, and that the grammar schools were automatically linked with it.
The Minister said that there was no opposition to the proposals. Opposition was given to his Department from the beginning, and it was strongly voiced in Northern Ireland. In fact, the Department of Education sent a document round the various education authorites about these proposals. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us how many associations objected. He did not list them.
Unfortunately, some of those voicing strong opinions tonight against what was said in the last debate were not present then. If they had been, they would have had an opportunity to speak there and then, and it ill becomes them to criticise Members from Northern Ireland who voiced their opposition in the proper manner.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that we were B Specials—

Mr. McCusker: That is a compliment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Knowing what has been said about the B Specials in the House, and having listened to the lying, scandalous statements made about them


in the House, that they killed innocent Roman Catholics, when we know that in the Province of Northern Ireland since direct rule has come in more people have been killed than were ever killed in the so-called 50 years of misrule—

Mr. Fitt: This has nothing to do with the order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: These are the facts—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is straying a long way from the question of voluntary schools—a long long way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall return to the order. I want to deal with it. This is where the matter should be discussed, but it should not be a debate of hour and a half. It is an important matter. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) talked about its largeness. Other matters were raised in the last debate. There was the matter of the Gaelic Athletic Association, which is now forgotten, and the Sports Council.
The Minister spoke about playgrounds. The playgrounds in the maintained schools are not used exclusively by the children who attend the schools. In the evenings, not only school property but other property is used for church functions. At the present time a push is being made by the GAA. We know the rules of the GAA—rules which discriminate against members of the Army and of the RUC. It seems to me that an attempt can be made through this order to get ground compulsorily, to be used not by the children by whom it is supposed to be used but used afterwards for other functions, including GAA functions, as happens on school playgrounds at present. Certainly the people whom I represent are not prepared to see their money used to buy playgrounds which will not be used exclusively by the children of those schools, but will be used for these other functions.
These are very important matters. If the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) can name one school which is stuck for proper school facilities, I shall be glad to lend my weight in order to see that that school gets proper facilities. But I shall not lend my weight,

or the weight of the people whom I represent, to the compulsory buying of property which will be used not for that specific educational purpose but for other purposes. That is the main argument tonight, and there is no use this House trying to make attacks on anyone's individual and religious standing.
I am a Protestant. I have no apology to make for my Protestantism, and I have no apology to make for the principles of Protestantism. If hon. Members want to attack the Protestant people of Northern Ireland, let me tell them that those people will not surrender their faith or be brow-beaten by this House or any other House. I want to make that perfectly clear. I shall not sit quietly in this House. I shall defend what the people sent me here to defend, and this House had better know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying very far from the question of voluntary schools.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It seems that in this House those hon. Members from Ulster who are Protestants can be attacked. They can be called any name which can be thought up. But it also seems that they are not allowed to defend themselves. In fact, we have been told tonight that the Protestant people of Northern Ireland should not be rightly represented in this House. One hon. Member has told us that we should be disfranchised. Talk about discrimination! That hon. Gentleman does not want more Northern Ireland Members. Why? Because those hon. Members would say things which were unpalatable to him.
I thought that this House believed in democracy. I thought that this House believed that people who are elected have a right to speak. I have not tried to hide the matter in any way. I have made my position absolutely and perfectly clear. I am sorry that we have not had time to discuss the order properly. There are provisions in it relating to other matters, such as the nominated committees. I am totally opposed to such committees having the power to form other committees. I know what they are being formed for. They are being formed to advise on how to bring in comprehensive education.
I know that the Minister needs time to reply. We should have had a longer debate on this issue so that everyones


might have taken part and so that we could have had a thorough discussion. But this Order in Council business muzzles Members from Northern Ireland from expressing their wishes in a full, frank and free manner.

2.9 a.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I shall take only one minute. I do not intervene in order to say anything hurtful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I have no desire to bandy words with him. I know where he stands, and I think that he knows where I stand. I leave it at that.
I did read the report of the debate on 20th June. The speeches were quite illuminating. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an extremely good speech in which he asked fundamental questions, particularly with regard to the Crichel Down rules and the question of land being restored to its proper owners. That was absolutely right—first class.
The speeches made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) I found offensive. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, we should forget all the religious arguments, cant and all that row. That, by the way, was decided in the Education Act 1944. The kind of education system we have this side of the Irish Sea was decided a long time ago.
People in Northern Ireland—be they Protestant, Catholic, or whatever—who want land for schools and want to apply for a compulsory purchase order are unable to do it alone. They must go to area boards, and then there may be appeals. They may have to go through the whole procedure. No one is suggesting—except the hon. Member for Down, North, in his wild fantasies—that people can do exactly what they want because they have a particular religious view.
The Minister wants to speak again, so I will shut up, but hon. Members opposite talk such rubbish that I cannot stand it—and the Tory Front Bench is even worse.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Carter: It is regrettable that this debate has taken place in a totally inappropriate atmosphere—an atmosphere set by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). He made a thoroughly squalid speech. I wish I had longer than three minutes to reply to the tone and content of what he said. He is responsible for the tone of the whole debate.
The truth is that we are talking about a simple matter of equity. That is all. If this applied to anywhere else than Northern Ireland, it would be treated as a thoroughly innocuous matter. But tonight, set off by the hon. Member for Abingdon, we descended into the pit of despair. Anybody who reads Hansard the day after tomorrow will surely come to this view.
We should have had a thoroughly reasoned argument about the ability of schools to vest land which they require, either for building or other purposes. This ability has existed in the rest of the United Kingdom since 1944. That is 34 years ago—almost half a century.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) made what was probably the only reasoned argument from the Opposition Benches tonight. He said that some elements were opposed to article 10. I am afraid they are very few and far between. Fifty-one organisations were contacted, and sent details of what was proposed, and only three were opposed to them. The vast majority of opinion in Northern Ireland, inside and outside government, were in favour of our proposals. The hon. Member asked what purposes the land would be used for. I have spelt that out on two occasions. We are talking only about land that will be required—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 2.

Division No. 3061]
AYES
[2.13 a.m.>


Archer, Peter
Carter, Ray
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bstes, Alf
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Cryer, Bob


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Davidson, Arthur


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)




Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (Newton)
Mallalleu, J. p. w.
Spearing, Nigel


Fitt, Gerald (Belfast W)
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Foot, Rr Hon Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Fowler, Jerry (The Wrekin)
Morton, George
Ward, Michael


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Watkinson, John


Graham, Ted
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike
Williams, Alan Lee (Homch'ch)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ogden, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Huckfleld, Les
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur



Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. James Hamilton and


Luard, Evan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. A. W. Stallard.




NOES



Craig, Rt Hon William (Belfast E)




Dunlop, John




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. James Kilfedder and




Rev. Ian Paisley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to ask for your ruling. Is it in order for a Member of this House to stand at the door when hon. Members are voting and to pass remarks on how they vote? The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the former Government Chief Whip, stood at the door tonight—I was a Teller—and made remarks to two of my colleagues, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), as they voted. I should like a ruling on that matter.

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we were not told what observations were made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), how can you rule upon them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with the first point of order. Whatever remarks were passed do not constitute a matter for the Chair. They were outside the Chamber in any event.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMTITEE

Motion made,
That the Northern Ireland Committee have leave, at their next sitting, to consider the

matter of the Eighth and Ninth Reports of the Examiner of Statutory Rules before resuming consideration of the matter of the Reorganisation of the Housing Executive.—[Mr. Carter.]

Hon. Members: Object.

RAF INNSWORTH (DISPERSAL POLICIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]

2.25 a.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the proposed move of work from Royal Air Force station, Innsworth, which is in my constituency, to Glasgow. I should like to say how pleased I am to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench. The hour is late and we have had a heavy week in Parliament. But I know, and so does this Parliament, of the assiduous attention that my hon. Friend pays to all aspects of the RAF. Therefore, I am pleased that he will be replying to the debate.
In one sense, the broad base of the case that I am about to deploy has already been made in the streets of London today, when hundreds of civil servants demonstrated in Whitehall, outside the Ministry of Defence. They came from many parts of this country, objecting to the proposed centralisation in Glasgow of service computer operations. It is right that my hon. Friend should know that


there was great intensity of feeling at the demonstration today. He should also know that two coachloads of civil servants came up from RAF Innsworth, which is in the unfortunate position of being the base which has the greatest numbers of personnel involved in this proposed move to Glasgow.
I should like to make my own position clear. I am opposed to this scheme. In my view, this move is undesirable, it is unnecessarily complex and it is totally unwanted in Gloucestershire. I suspect that these views would be echoed by colleagues in the House whose constituencies are being affected in the same way as mine. This view is certainly backed by the unions involved—namely, the Civil and Public Services Association—whose representative I see present in the Chamber tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth), to whom I pay tribute for the work that he has put in on our side of this case—and the Society of Civil and Public Servants.
I must indicate to the House that the strongest exception to this move has been taken by the local authorities in my area, particularly the Gloucestershire County Council, the Tewkesbury Borough Council, the Forest of Dean District Council and all the other district and parish authorities which are affected. I have been lobbied on many occasions in my surgeries by people who are concerned and directly involved in this proposed move. Indeed, I have been lobbied here in Parliament by groups who have come up from my local authorities, so concerned are they about the possible effects of this move upon my area.
Those of us who are deeply involved in the move have been told that the scheme is not part of what have become known as the Hardman proposals. As I understand it, these proposals were designed to disperse jobs from London to other parts of the country. It would, in fact, be possible to justify the move of work from RAF Innsworth in these terms, for in a real sense RAF Innsworth is already a dispersed centre.
It would appear, therefore, that this scheme is a Government commitment to take jobs from England and give them to Glasgow. Frankly, my constituents at Innsworth do not see why they should be pawns in this game.
In this context, it is interesting to note what Sir Henry Hardman said about long-distance dispersal to Glasgow. After recommending a particular dispersal move to Glasgow, Sir Henry stated:
I recommend it as a solution only with serious misgivings and only because otherwise there is no work from London which could go to Scotland at all. Indeed, Ministers may feel that that is the right solution, given that Glasgow has done well out of dispersal so far (having received the largest dispersal of the previous exercise, the National Savings Bank, which will total some 7,000 posts).
Yet though Hardman, in his report, himself advises against long-distance dispersal, the Government have decided that there should be dispersal of over 5,500 jobs within the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow.
I turn directly to RAF Innsworth. In total, over 1,400 people are involved at RAF Innsworth. This figure includes 850 Ministry of Defence civilians and over 560 RAF personnel. From what I can gather, the RAF personnel have no great liking for this proposed move, although it must be said that under the terms of their service they must be ready to accept postings elsewhere within the kingdom. But it is clear that there is great opposition to the move from the Ministry of Defence civilians. If carried through, this scheme could have very serious repercussions on the northern part of my constituency. For the senior staff, it would mean the choice between going to Glasgow and resigning. For other grades, it would mean early retirement, redundancy, or possibly some other Government job.
Naturally there is great concern about the social and economic implications of the move. Indeed, there is concern that if there is a large scale exodus from the area it will have a serious impact on the housing market as many houses suddenly come on the market in the Gloucestershire area, and unless the Government provide new jobs and actively instal new units at RAF Innsworth there could, over the years, be a serious and lasting impact on the local economy in terms of the diminished spending power available to the area.
But there is a strong fear, too, that if the Government let RAF Innsworth gradually run down, relying on redundancy and retirement, there will also over the years be a serious loss of job opportunities for youngsters in our area, and


we do not have the sort of unemployment rates that can easily bear any major increase.
I expect that my hon. Friend can understand that my constituents are saying "Why uproot us from an area we like and have accepted, and which has accepted us, and then probably or possibly bring in new RAF installations? Why go in for this dispersal programme?"
I want to put four points to the Minister. First, I hope that no decision on that matter will be taken in the recess. I hope he will agree that it would involve what would amount to a substantial breach of parliamentary convention if a decision of this magnitude were to be announced in the absence of a large number of Members directly involved at constituency level with this move to Glasgow.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does my hon. Friend know that it would cause bitter resentment among the trade unionists involved—a bitterness that has already been shown today by the number of people who have demonstrated outside the Ministry of Defence about this move? Will he press the Minister on this point to ensure that the sort of demonstration that we have had today is not repeated if this announcement is made during the recess?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He underlines one of the first points made to me when I attended the demonstration. It was impressed upon me by these people that they could not envisage a decision being announced in the recess, being slipped through, as it were, when it was so well known that there was such strong opposition within Parliament. My hon. Friend will know, because he has led delegations to several Ministers, that a number of our colleagues in this House are directly and specifically involved in the issue. So I hope that the Miniser will take note of what has been said on this point.
Secondly, in a letter to me on 5th June the Minister indicated that the ADP base solution is only one of a number of possibilities which apparently are under examination. Can he say whether these other options are still being examined?
Thirdly, will the proposed move have any significant employment effects in Glasgow? I know that this is one of the prime motivations behind the move. Is it not the case that service jobs will inevitably be filled by service men who will be taken from England to Glasgow and that many civilian jobs, because of the nature of this computer-oriented work programme, will be filled by people transferred from England to Scotland? Will not even the other posts have to be advertised nationally, rather than locally, under the rules of the Civil Service? Are the Government simply hoping that the proposed move to Glasgow will just have a spin-off effect on the economy, in terms of multiplying the amount of money spent in the locality rather than creating any major employment opportunities in the area?
Fourthly, there are reliable estimates that the whole dispersal programme will cost more than £200 million. My constituents are asking why it is not possible to hand over such a sum—perhaps not as large as £200 million—to Glasgow so that it can develop home-based industries instead of having communities broken up in England. There is in Innsworth a community associated with RAF Inns-worth which has been there for a number of years. The move involves the break-up of a local community.
There is no doubt, from the conversations I have had with constituents at RAF Innsworth and from listening to the objections presented at parliamentary lobbies from areas all over the country that are concerned, that there is a deep-seated hostility and bitterness towards this scheme. It has few friends in Parliament and even fewer in my county of Gloucestershire. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to think again.

2.37 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) has presented his case to Parliament. He has pursued relentlessly what he sees to be the interests of the area and the people he represents. I can assure him that whatever may be the


final outcome of this matter, every conceivable aspect involved in the operation of RAF Innsworth will have been considered and my hon. Friend and his constituents can be sure that his activities have played a significant part in ensuring that a thorough examination and reexamination has taken place.
In July last year, the Government reaffirmed their intention to go ahead with the overall programme for dispersing Civil Service jobs. This means that the Ministry of Defence is committed to finding between 4,000 and 5,000 jobs for Cardiff and up to 5,500 jobs for Glasgow in the period up to the late 1980s. Tonight we are concerned solely with the Glasgow commitment.
Ministers also agreed last year that the MOD could look to its establishments outside London in order to meet the Glasgow commitment. This took account of the Cardiff dispersal plans, the rundown in headquarters numbers as a result of defence reviews, the decision to exclude quality assurance staffs from the dispersal package and certain MOD decentralisation plans, for example the setting up of Army logistics executive at Andover. As a result, the MOD carried out various feasibility studies into the possibility of meeting the Glasgow dispersal commitment by colocating in Glasgow a number of computer-based functions embodying civilian pay and records work at Bath and Cheadle Hulme together with the three single-service pay, manning and personnel records systems at Gosport, the RAPC computer centre/United Kingdom land forces command pay office at Worthy Down near Winchester and the RAF personnel management centre, at RAF Innsworth, near Gloucester, in my hon. Friend's constituency. The feasibility studies into the computer-based package have indicated that there are problems that appear to be real enough to suggest that it would be unwise to take the final decision on the whole of the Glasgow package until we have carefully examined other posible ways of meeting the Glasgow commitment. That is the first answer to my hon. Friend—that we are pursuing the possibility of other packages being put together.
If a decision were taken to include RAF personnel management centre at RAF Innsworth in the Glasgow dispersal package, it is most unlikely that any move

of staff or equipment could take place before 1985–86 at the earliest. This gives us adequate time to consider what alternative use could be made of the existing facilities at Innsworth and what alternative employment might be found for the staff, but I must emphasise that no final decisions have yet been taken about the Glasgow dispersal package as a whole.
Dispersal is an extremely emotive subject. Its supporters make their case just as forcefully as the protesters. But I want to assure my Scottish colleagues that the MOD is on target as regards the dispersal programme which the Lord Privy Seal announced last year and, in conjunction with the other Government Departments concerned, we have been going ahead with our detailed planning for the first batch of about 1,500 posts which are due to go to the Anderston site in central Glasgow by 1983–84.
The costs of the Government dispersal programme are high, in the initial stages, due to staff transfer costs and the provision of office accommodation in the receiving locations. In the later stages of the dispersal programme there are considerable savings to be gained from, for example, rents, rates and allowances and from rationalisation. In addition there are important social and economic benefits that will flow to the receiving locations, and the Government have taken the view that regional considerations are paramount. In announcing the revised dispersal timetable in July last, the Lord Privy Seal said that it was estimated that net Exchequer savings for the whole programme were expected to reach some £20 million by 1991 to 1992.
In view of the representations which I know many hon. Members have received from local staff side representatives and constituents about MOD dispersal, I should perhaps say a word about the attitude of the MOD departmental staff side to dispersal to Glasgow. In short, they are opposed in principle to the dispersal of any MOD posts to Glasgow and to the proposed computer-based solution in particular. As recently as Tuesday of this week, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence discussed with MOD staff side representatives the latest developments on the MOD dispersal commitment for Glasgow, and I very much hope that it will be possible to continue


to negotiate with the departmental staff side on all the many aspects of MOD dispersal through the aegis of the MOD Whitley Council.
As I have said, dispersal is an emotive subject and for this reason we are giving a good deal of thought to the human aspects of the dispersal programme. The Lord President of the Council, in first announcing the dispersal decisions, gave an undertaking that there would be no redundancy among non-mobile grades as a result of the programme. So far as the mobile grades are concerned, the intention is that dispersal will be implemented on a voluntary basis to the maximum possible extent.
We are under no illusions about the problems and difficulties which are bound to arise in implementing the MOD dispersal programme but, given the length of time before any actual moves take place, we would hope to overcome most of the problems which I know are worrying hon. Members, like my hon. Friend, who have been taking a detailed interest in this whole matter.
I can confirm that the question of dispersal was discussed at some length this afternoon at a meeting of the Defence Council under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The discussion brought out clearly the difficulty of the issues involved here. The Defence Council took note of the written representations made to them by representatives of the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants.
The House will not expect me to go into details about the conclusions reached,

but I can say that further work has been commissioned. I can also confirm that the Government's position on dispersal in general and dispersal of the Ministry of Defence in particular, remains unchanged. However, the composition of the packages of work for dispersal to Glasgow has still to be finally decided. The decision will be taken with as much dispatch as the difficulty of the issues allows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) pressed me very hard for an undertaking that no announcement would be made while the House was in recess. I can assure them that I shall convey to my right hon. Friend their strong and urgent representations and ask him to communicate with them if there should be any difficulty in that respect.
I hope that I have covered all the matters raised in this short debate. This is a difficult problem, and I assure my hon. Friends that it is causing us in the Ministry of Defence to think carefully again and again, because of the many human issues involved. But, above all, we have this commitment to bring about a dispersal to assist the regions in Wales and Scotland which need this additional work, and I know that my hon. Friends will sympathise with us in the dilemma that we face, knowing the dilemma that they themselves face in their constituencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Three o'clock. a.m.